Thursday, 15 December 2016 21:37

The Aleppo blame game

“Save Aleppo” has been the appeal for the last couple of years. It is a bit misleading, as there has for years been two Aleppos: East Aleppo under rebel control and West Aleppo under Syrian Government Control. The civil war between the two parts has imposed immense suffering on both East and West Aleppo, but most on the East, as the Syrian Army has superior fire power and dominates the sky. Urban warfare, when the civil population has not been evacuated, is cruel and barbarian, as the civil casualties are horrifying. And now that the battle of Aleppo is over, the recriminations begin: we should have done something to save Aleppo, and we didn’t.

But the question is: what should we have done?

A lot of people are horrified by the idea of Donald Trump becoming presidential candidate for the US Republican Party. And rightly so. They tend to look to Hilary Clinton as the sane, moderate mainstream US presidential candidate, who they hope will win. But when we look at their foreign policy statements, it is not so clear, which candidate would be more dangerous for the rest of us as a possible future American president. Taken at face-value, it looks as if it is Hillary.

Journalists know that how they express things is important for the message they convey. This is particularly the case when there is a war going on. They are expected to act responsibly and support the national war effort, of course without keeping silent about uncomfortable facts – that would be self-censorship. So it is difficult manoeuvring. Here is a quick guide on what to write and what not to write.

Russia's risky decision to get directly involved in the Syrian civil war has been met with furious protests from the Western powers. BBC reports that NATO has urged Russia to end air strikes "on the Syrian opposition and civilians". But who is it that we want to defend against the Russians bombing raids? Are they the long sought for “moderate secular” opposition forces, which now are being destroyed by the Russian raids? Hardly.

Wednesday, 03 September 2014 21:05

Revolutionary NATO

Real revolutionaries do not just seize power. They also break down the existing power structure of the state and construct a new one from scratch, substituting the old administrators with people from the revolutionary movement, expecting in this way to get rid of not only all the people from the old system, but also all the old ideas. This was the recipe for the October revolution in Russia in 1917. And this is the recipe that NATO has been using today. In Iraq. In Libya. In Syria. This seems to have been be very good for NATO – it has never looked stronger. But is it good for us?

The chemical attack on the rebel held Damascus suburb Eastern Ghouta on August 21 last year brought us very close to a US attack on Syria. It was called off in last minute, after Russian President Vladimir Putin brokered an agreement with the Syrian Government to give up its chemical weapons. But who was behind the Ghouta attack? The US and most Western countries have no doubt: it was the Syrian Government. Russia - after some dithering - ended up pointing to the rebels. However, proofs are very scarce for either accusation. So it leaves at least some of us with an unpleasant feeling of having being taken for a ride – once again.

Despite much talk on President Assad's imminent fall a year and a half ago, and then the last year or so of a “stalemate”, it is now for everybody to see – whether we like it or not - that the present phase of the Syrian civil war is nearing its end, unless there is direct military intervention from abroad. The apparent decision by the US to provide the rebels with more sophisticated weaponry will only slow this process, not change the outcome. The big question is, however, what comes next?