Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Sergei Lavrov — Western media echoes Pentagon threats re. Russian deaths as revenge for Syria

"As for the opinion, reasoning of some media that the terrorist attack is a revenge on Russia for our policy in Syria — this is cynical and cowardly. I have no desire to even begin to characterize such statements," - said Lavrov at a press conference following talks with foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan Erlan Abdyldayev.
According to the minister, "It is not just an invention of the media, but some leaders, including representatives of the Pentagon under the Obama administration shared similar thoughts with global community, when they predicted that since we came to Syria to help the Assad government, then we should expect new coffins, which will keep flowing to Russia with the bodies of your soldiers."
Lavrov believes that such statements are not worthy of politicians. "I hope that in the current situation when terrorism threatens all countries without exception, we can get rid of such double standards and the politicians will show responsibility in this respect", — concluded Lavrov, expressing the hope that the media can show understanding.
Fort Russ
Lavrov: Western media echoes Pentagon threats re. Russian deaths as revenge for Syria
RT Russian - Translated by Kristina Kharlova

The very powerful (perhaps most powerful) forces of the West are interested in whatever is necessary to remove President Putin and prevent his election or the election of one of his proteges. Perhaps their plans include organizing turbulence in Russia similar to as in Ukraine. Therefore, it is perhaps no coincidence that the terrorist attack in Saint Petersburg took place the day after a loud but ineffective opposition protest.

If our intuitive assumption proves correct, then the terrorist attack in the St. Petersburg metro is the first “harbinger” boding an active year in Russia. And it will be followed by other resonant crimes and protests whose aim is the same despite their divergences. That goal is blowing up Russia from within ahead of elections, and frustrating and turning the people of Russia against Vladimir Putin.
Popov: St. Petersburg terror is part of Western plan to remove Putin
Eduard Popov - translated by J. Arnoldski


Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy are probably to the right of John McCain on Vladimir Putin.

The Washington Post
Trump’s new Russia expert wrote a psychological profile of Vladimir Putin — and it should scare Trump — Review of “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin” by Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy
Carlos Lozada

The atmosphere is becoming increasingly poisonous on both side. Trump will be hard pressed to cary off anything resembling détente and his appointment of Fiona Hill certainly didn't help. 

Maybe someone could come up with a toxicity index?


Bob said...

Have they forgotten about the Russian passenger plane blown up in Egypt?

Salsabob said...

Interesting how the bombings took place just a week after the mass protests across Russia against Tsar Putin. Blowing up Moscow apartments back in '99 when the public support of Chechen War started to fade worked pretty well then; FSA agents are know for going-back-to-the-well. It be a two'fer if they took out another someone-in-th-know on the Trump colloboration who just happened to be in the train car.

If we're going to blow Lavrov fantasia on this blog, someone needs to add a little balance.

Tom Hickey said...


On that reasoning, the alleged gas attack by "Assad's forces" shortly after Trump declares that "Assad must go" is obviously a false flag designed to reverse that policy.

The Duran
Sean Spicer ignores false flag attack in Syria
Adam Garrie

John said...

Someone has to keep ramming home the point, as someone said today over at RT, why would Assad gas civilians with great alacrity yet show overwhelming reluctance to gas ISIS and other assorted jihadi nutters when they besieged and stormed Syrian positions?

Although the very same gas was available to defend his forces, Assad chose instead to gas innocent civilians? If this absurdity had any truth in it, Assad and every member of his government would have been assassinated by the Syrian armed forces, who would have had to take power in a military coup because clearly their government was insane.

Tom Hickey said...

Exactly, John. Assad's or his military using poison gas to attack a hospital full of civilians just because they are bad people is beyond illogical. Makes no sense. But a false flag makes a lot of sense, especially in light of recent development on the side of the Trump administration that are at odds with the international "liberal" war party. Moreover, the m.o. is the same as the war party continually uses to create a narrative on demand.

There are essentially three possibilities.

The first is that Assad and his army are depraved criminals bent on committing war crimes in broad daylight. Implausible.

The second is a false flag targeted at Assad and his government. Highly plausible.

The third is that Assad's air force hit a target that they had identified as a terrorist position. However, it turned out to be a depot for terrorists weapons that included chemical weapons and the hit dispersed the chemicals. There is some evidence to suggest that this may have been what happened.

An iteration of the third is that two and three are related. The terrorists could have positioned the chemical weapons to be hit by the Syrian AF with the knowledge that this would create the appearance of the chemicals being used from the aircraft.

Another matter that is highly suspicious is that Western governments and media immediately jumped to the conclusion that "Assad did it," and that was fed into the echo chamber right way.

Another issue, as the article in The Duran observes, is the involvement of the White Helmets in the propaganda effort.

Why am I so cynical about this. I was serving in the military when the Vietnam War was just heating up and was deployed in the US Navy at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I came to know during the time I was on active duty that the Vietnam War was cooked up for reasons other than those that were being used to sell the public and the people in the military at the time.

The Gulf of Tonkin was a classic false flag but that was actually only a minor aspect of the selling of the war on false pretenses — liberal interventionism and R2P. The actual reasons were very different and are the same reasons that dictated US policy post-WWII, namely achieving permanent global hegemony. While the narrative was that this was about promoting democracy, it was really about promoting capitalism as the guarantor of Atlanticist supremacy under the "leadership of the US."

Since then I have come to see that this is a pattern. Chomsky wrote a book on it called "Manufacturing Consent."

Bob said...

Wait a minute, when did Trump declare that "Assad must go"?

Tom Hickey said...

when did Trump declare that "Assad must go"?

He didn't. He said that would go after ISIS during the campaign. Recently he said that Assad can stay for now.

Trump did not reverse his position but rather Obama's position that the top priority for the US in Syria was removing Assad from power. Trump's now declared position is that the US will not go after Assad but rather focus on the terrorists, as he had promised.

Now Tillerson and Haley are saying that the US position is that Assad cannot participate in a future election when it is held, presumably after the terrorists are defeated and it is feasible to hold an election.

This is a reversal of the Obama-necon-hawk position that "Assad must go now" as the top priority.

The liberal interventionists, neocons and hawks are not happy over this.

Tom Hickey said...

Simply assumes "Assad did it" because Trump said that Assad was no longer the top priority and Assad is a really bad guy who was emboldened now that the pressure is off.

Trump may face new pressure after Syria chemical weapons attack

Are Americans really this moronic? Looks like it. They keep falling for the same tricks going on over 60 years now.

Bob said...

I suppose the question is: Will Trump fall for it?

Tom Hickey said...

Syrian aviation airstrike in Idlib targeted chemical arms lab — Russian Defense Ministry

Tom Hickey said...

I suppose the question is: Will Trump fall for it?

I don't think it is so much a matter of Trump falling for it. He is being handed a poisoned chalice by the propaganda (fake news) machine that has been conducting a blitz to demonize Assad today. The NYT is out with a damning editorial based on the assumption that Assad must have done it because "everyone knows" he is a demon.

No matter that the Syria Army been and is locked in deadly combat with the "rebels" and never uses chemical weapons against them only against civilians exactly at the time it is of most effect to Western propaganda efforts to manage the narrative using the pictures of wounded and dead children supplied by the White Helmets and transmitted through the a British-based source funded by Britain and reputedly associated with British intelligence.

Bob said...

He's gone on about 'fake news', now is his chance to challenge a false narrative. Does he have the needed intel or is he in the dark like the rest of us?

All bark and no bite if he caves on this one without seeking the truth.

Tom Hickey said...

Trump is going to be thinking about political capital.

Once public opinion is charged in the opposite direction, it requires expending political capital to address it.

I suspect that Trump figures he has more important fish to fry at the moment and will make noises about Syria and Assad and let Nikki Haley carry on like Samantha Power while he focuses on his priorities.

But we'll have to wait and see how he handles it, if one can see through the smokescreens and maneuvers, that is.

We knew this was bound be a reality show and so far we have not been disappointed.

Bob said...

Where is American public opinion on Syria?

Bob said...

“The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.” - Rex Tillerson