UNSC votes unanimously on ISIS “threat” – but what does this mean in real terms?
What to make of the unanimous, though seemingly very vaguely-worded, UN vote on “a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security”? Does it really indicate a potential new rapprochement between the West and Russia? This possibility is being heavily promoted in some (mostly Russian) media right now, while other outlets – such as the Guardian and NYT – are so far pretty much ignoring the UN resolution altogether.
A united attack on ISIS is fine in theory, if we ignore the fact NATO is funding and arming ISIS, and is actually engaged in what amounts to a proxy war with Russia in Syria. Allying with Russia to destroy ISIS would require a total reversal of US/NATO policy, not just in the ME, but globally. This seems very unlikely to happen, unless we have been completely deceived about the nature of Russo/US geopolitcs.
It will certainly prove very interesting to watch developments in the next few days and weeks. A good measure of the real intentions behind current rhetoric will be the reception given to Russia’s draft UN resolution “proposing international military campaigns to fight against Islamic State”. Whether it’s passed or blocked by certain members of the UNSC will tell us a good deal about where loyalties truly lie.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.
Their are problems especially regarding Turkey, they are now overtly behind ISIS as in ISIS R us which leaves the US and vassals with a problem, do they throw Syrian Kurds under the bus or Turkey,, i’m afraid the Syrian Kurds will be the losers.. ISIS look to be the tail wagging the Turkish dog. It will all end i tears
They need to keep the Turkish corridor to ISIS open HOW is anybodys guess. A no fly zone looks on the cards .
It’s hard to see how the US can abandon ISIS without also abandoning its aims for both ME dominance and “containment” of Russia. If they co-operate with Russia now they are acceding to the notion that Russia has a presence in the ME, which effectively puts paid to their entire ME plan. It might be the sane way to proceed, but is it the neocon way?
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
“What to make of the unanimous, though seemingly very vaguely-worded, UN vote on “a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security”? Does it really indicate a potential new rapprochement between the West and Russia? This possibility is being heavily promoted in some (mostly Russian) media right now, while other outlets – such as the Guardian and NYT – are so far pretty much ignoring the UN resolution altogether.
A united attack on ISIS is fine in theory, if we ignore the fact NATO is funding and arming ISIS, and is actually engaged in what amounts to a proxy war with Russia in Syria. Allying with Russia to destroy ISIS would require a total reversal of US/NATO policy, not just in the ME, but globally. This seems very unlikely to happen, unless we have been completely deceived about the nature of Russo/US geopolitcs.
It will certainly prove very interesting to watch developments in the next few days and weeks. A good measure of the real intentions behind current rhetoric will be the reception given to Russia’s draft UN resolution “proposing international military campaigns to fight against Islamic State”. Whether it’s passed or blocked by certain members of the UNSC will tell us a good deal about where loyalties truly lie.”
People might be interested in this about Big Oil’s view on Obama
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/123943/big-oil-would-really-like-obama-to-leave-the-industry-alone
Maybe the oil companies have gone so rougue that the politicians are going to stand up to them…?
No, fair enough that’s just too fanciful