Wednesday, October 5

Who's right about US objectives in Syria? Assad or Meyssan?

Bashar al-Assad (October 5, 2016): “There is no point in analyzing US politics on the basis of common sense, as it is guided by the factional interests. ... United States builds its position on hegemony over other states and it has been the case since they took advantage of the USSR collapse and established unilateral control over this world up to this day,” the president said, adding that the real motive behind US military interventions into foreign countries is to coerce them to submit to American authority, as in the case with Syria. ...

Thierry Meyssan (October 4, 2016): The failure of the Russo-US agreement of 9 September and the Security Council debates which followed have enabled us to confirm several hypotheses.

The current strategic objective of the United States in Syria is indeed to cut the «Silk Road», which China has been preparing for many years. Placing President Xi Jinping in power in May 2013, China has made the restoration of this historic communication route its main goal. However, since China has become the world’s principal producer, Xi has planned to augment it with a «new Silk Road» which will pass through Siberia and Eastern Europe before joining up with the European Union.

Logically enough, the United States are currently organising two proxy wars, one in the Levant, and the other in Ukraine. The installation of chaos in Syria and Donbass are not aimed at satisfying the cynical theories of Leo Strauss, but exclusively to cut the axes of these routes. ...


Interesting, eh? Meyssan sees the American administration, at least under Obama, as a rational actor, one capable of long-range strategy. Assad (a physician by training and analytical predisposition) sees it as a headless horseman, driven by primal instincts of power and control.  



Col. B. Bunny said...

Meyssan's idea has a certain logic to it but it forgets the great lengths to which the US has gone to enrich and otherwise strengthen China. Meyssan in effect argues that the US is logical and realistic in building China up and then undercutting it.

A rational ruling class would have kept competitors in a subservient status from the start. It wasn't a bit of a boo boo to make China into a strategic competitor/threat. It was plain and simple CFR, Bilderberger, Freddy Krueger strategic planning.

Similarly, the US would not weaken itself with open borders, propositional nation, multiculturalism, and PC nonsense and then figure that the Chinese Silk Road required red alert machinations in Ukraine and Syria.

No. I vote for the "completely lost our mind" theory.

Pundita said...

Hear! Hear! I'll second your vote. But I thought it was funny that Meyssan, who has come up with the craziest conspiracy theories, should now see Obama as a rational actor. What next? Cows raining from the sky?