in ,

3 groups of people disappointed that Russia hasn’t retaliated against US forces

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

1. The Russophobic Press 

The press who have spent years calling President Putin a dictator, a tyrant and a threat to world peace are very disappointed today. Their disappointment stems from the fact that Russia’s response to the illegal and unprovoked attack on Syria will be defensive measures that are legal and  and proportionate to the US instigated provocation.

Russia is not interested in starting a new war, they are interested in stopping terrorism from re-gaining an upper hand in Syria. Russia is not interested in ‘vengeance’ but interested in assuring that there is a sufficient diplomatic and military deterrent in place in Syria to prevent further attacks on the land of a sovereign state. This is Russia’s ‘end game’. I realise that it’s too sensible to sell failing mainstream media newspapers, but the truth doesn’t always make for a sensationalist bonanza…unless of course one is in the fake news business.

The only question I have for the Russophobic press merchants is this: is it worth a world-war to validate your narrative? Are you that sick? Because if you are, than you are far more evil than the terrorists in Syria who are actually behind the chemical weapons attack.

The Russophobic press have predictably responded by going into deception overdrive.

Britain’s liberal Independent newspaper has run a story on Russia’s defensive readiness tests and have written about it in such a way that implies Russia is preparing to go to war. Only the Independent could write about defensive measures which are standard in any time of crisis (think anti-terrorist drills in the aftermath of a terrorist attack) as though they are offensive measures.

The far-right Daily Mail responded in usual fashion by taking a quote by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev totally out of context. The full statement from the Russian Prime Minister which in total reads more like the words of a disappointed Ron Paul style libertarian than a war mad politician can be found here, as part of a piece detailing US aggression and brinkmanship, something the mainstream press exclusively and falsely assign to Russia.

Perhaps the most surreal daily dose of Russophobia is a semi-coherent, rambling opinion piece essentially blaming Putin for every ill to befall Syria published in Qatari owned Al-Jazeera.

The fact that Russia has responded in a mature, frank , measured and calm manner is disappointing to the people projecting their own hawkish hysteria onto Russia.

Unlike the journalists who think war is a video game, Russia knows the true meaning of war and suffering. The Great Patriotic war took the lives of nearly 30 million Soviet citizens, the vast majority Russian. Russia isn’t about to jump into a war at the first possible moment, because the Russian state and Russian people know what war is; it is hell.

2. The Political Elite 

The politicians are all over the place today. Prior to the attack, John McCain was filmed saying that if America attacks Syria, Russia would not respond in any way. The implication here is that Russia and her allies are weak and frightened of America.

Other members of that same political elite have engaged in a narrative which states that Russia is responsible for the attack.

Why might that be?

Is it because Russia oversaw the removal of chemical weapons in Syria which was complete by 2014, process also overseen and signed off for by the United States? No that doesn’t fit the narrative.

Is it because Russia has said that once terrorism is beaten in Syria, democratic elections should be held in line with the wishes of the Syrian people? No that doesn’t fit the narrative, either.

Because of this UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon simply resorted to what can only be called, fake geo-politics, blaming Russia for something Syria is accused of doing, which it almost certainly did not even do.

Meanwhile, Rex Tillerson has said that he is, ‘Disappointed but not surprised’ by Russia’s actions. What actions? Russia has made statements and promised to bolster the defence options of an ally. It’s a liberal use of the word response by any stretch of the English language. Russia has frankly, done little other than condemn the attack and call for further investigations into the chemical attack in Idlib Governorate.

3. Social Media Trolls 

Certain individuals on social media who claim to support Russia have lost the plot. They’re talking about ‘bombing the US’, ‘using nukes’ and attacking various US allies.

This would make Russia even more insane than the US and as it turns out, Russia is far saner than the US. Russia would be happy for the US to simply exit the campaign. If Trump’s fairly inefficient war crime was a one-off, Russia would still be angry but would happily return to business as usual in Syria, helping the government to fight terrorism rather than helping the government to defend against US attacks.

The people who think Russian politicians and military commanders are imagining themselves in some Rambo film are simply put, total idiots. Many of these people think they support Russia,  but they really don’t. If they did, they would support Russia’s commitment to restraint, peace and diplomacy rather than get physically excited over the fact that like the US, Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. We know that, Russia knows that, they’r not going to be used.

Go back to your Rambo films and leave serious debates to people who aren’t insane.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Watch MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explain exactly what happened in Syria: PUTIN DID IT!

In defence of Paul Joseph Watson: a man of principle (VIDEO)