Following yesterday's "news" that the US is rerunning the Iraq invasion script has been busy collecting made up solid evidence proving the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, which it would use as a basis for yet another foreign intervention including a no-fly zone and arming the Syrian rebels (just to accelerate the passage of a Qatari natgas pipeline into Europe, bypassing Gazprom, and installing another puppet Muslim Brotherhood government in the Mid-East [11]), the entire world waited with bated breath to learn what Russia's response, and remember to Russia Syria is a key geopolitical outpost and critical national interest, to US allegations would be.
The wait was short-lived. As Novosti reports [12]at least someone, somewhere has had the guts to call out this farce of an intervention from an official standpoint: "A US government report concluding Syria has used chemical weapons against rebels, crossing what US President Barack Obama has previously described as a “red line,” is a fabrication, a senior Russian lawmaker said Friday. "Information about the usage of chemical weapons by Assad is fabricated in the same way as the lie about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.” Alexei Pushkov, head of the Russian lower house of parliament’s international affairs committee, said on Twitter.
The truth-telling continues:
President Obama “is going the same way” as former President George W. Bush did then, Pushkov said.
Pushkov is known for also being quite a truth-teller in the past. From June of 2012: [13]
I think that what we had been hearing from the US is very partial. Somehow the US thinks that the only source of civil war in Syria is the government, which is not the case. There are 33 thousand people who are fighting the Syrian government, and they’re fighting the Syrian government with heavy weapons, not just Kalashnikovs and pistols. It’s heavy machine guns, it’s anti-tank guns and all of this armament was on display when a ship coming from Libya full of US weapons was arrested in Lebanon. On the photos you can see what kind of armament was sent to the insurgents. It’s Syrian force which has been trained outside of Syria. Some of them are really professional fighters. There’s some information about people who have been fighting in Libya, now are fighting on the side of the insurgents. I think that the US had better look at what kind of people they try to support there and what these people will bring to Damascus. Until now Syria was a secular country where different ethnicities and different religious factions were living in peace and for many years, - that’s very valuable. You have Christians, Sunnis, Alawis, Druze, Kurds and quite a few other groups. And if all of this explodes, I don’t think that we’ll have 10 thousand victims, we’ll have maybe 100 thousand victims. Russia wants to prevent this explosion. What we hear from our Western partners is that Assad should go and they are willing to support the insurgency. But supporting the insurgency, they are basically throwing oil into the flame. That is why Russia suggested having international conference where we can try to find the solution that would be proposed to both sides in the Syrian conflict. The key Russian position is that we are ready to influence Assad’s government, but the West should influence the insurgents. Otherwise it will not work out.
Do you think that the Western media was unfairly portraying Russia?
I think one of the reasons the West has been so critical about Russia in the Syrian issue is that the West doesn’t have the policy at all towards Syria. I’m not pretending that Russia has the answers, but Russia fulfills a very important role for the Western media. By this could not criticize their own governments for not having any kind of solutions. Because the only political program the West has is that Assad should go. OK, what happens after Assad goes? How the regime falls? Who will come in its place?
Is Russia prepared for that situation?
Russia is ready to look for answers together with Western countries. And we don’t accept this kind of criticism. And we don’t accept this kind of mythology that insurgents are poor foreign people. Because we know very well that they have been financed and armed by monarchies of the Persian Gulf. They don’t even hide this fact and I hardly see a situation where democracy in Syria will be established with the help of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And finally there have been some accusation that Russian foreign policy towards Syria is driven by its business interests. How do you respond to that?
I think that the most important thing is not business. Syria doesn’t play such a huge role in Russian foreign trade. The key factor in the Russian position is a very clear stand against the so-called regime change, against the so-called humanitarian intervention. We think that the Libyan example showed that these kinds of interventions lead to chaos and to the creation of a parallel international law: when you have a UN charter and at the same time you have some kind of parallel law which is being conducted by either friends of Syria or the Coalition of the Willing, something which goes around the UN rules or charters. We don’t want to accept a world where there would be another international law instead of internationally accepted one. Syria is just a very serious example of the Russian desire to fight for international law which is universally accepted.
Ah, the new normal: when Russia is telling the truth, and the USSA is openly lying.
Things will get more interesting when instead of using a proxy to tell the world how he feels, Putin actually takes the microphone in one of his signature brutally candid exposes. Also being former KGB, who knows just what revelations he may bring to the table regarding claims of prior "humanitarian" US interventions around the world, liberating so much crude oil from the heathen natives.
Things will get most interesting when the Russian armada currently stationed in Cyprus and swimming around in the Mediterranean, decides to park in the Russian naval base in Tartus. Because last we checked it was a no-fly zone, not a no-sail zone...