conflict zones, featured, Russia, Syria, United States

Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria

by Eric Zuesse

Late on Monday the 19th, was reported by Russia’s Sputnik: “In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying ojects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River, will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets” — meaning ordered out, or else immediately shot down.

In international law, and as recognized by the U.N., Syria has been invaded by the United States, was never invited into the country but is instead there as an invader. Russia was invited in; Iran was invited in; but the U.S. are only invaders. And, now, Russia and Syria will start treating the U.S. as such.

When U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeatedly called for the U.S. government to establish a no-fly zone in Syria, she was proposing that the U.S. invasion of Syria become recognized officially by the U.S. government, and this would have meant immediate war by the U.S. against Syria, Russia, and Iran, in the battlefields of Syria. President Barack Obama had decided not to go that far — to war against Russia — but Hillary Clinton insisted on it. And now, Russia has actually done it — but (unlike if the U.S. had done it) legally, in defense of the sovereign government of Syria, not as an invader.

(Furthermore, most Syrians support that government, and 82% of Syrians blame the U.S. for the invasion of Al Qaeda and other jihadist forces to overthrow it — most of which are foreigners — into Syrian territory.)

If the U.S. fails to apologize and to find some way to save face, but instead persists in its invasion, even after this warning, then either the U.S. or Russia will win that traditional war in Syria. At that point, the losing side will have only one way to win the war in Syria, and that way would be to go to nuclear war against the other side, bombing the other side’s homeland — Russia, or else the United States — by means of a blitz all-out nuclear atack, in order to obliterate as much of the other side’s nuclear weapons before they’re fired, as possible, and thus minimize the retaliation, and so ‘win’. Doing that — being the first to unleash armageddon — would ‘win’ the war, but destroy the entire planet.

However, if the U.S. regime instead simply backs down now, before there will be any hot war against Russia, then big history will be made, and the world will never be the same again.

So, in either case, the world will never be the same again: the future is going to be very unlike the past, regardless of whether there even will be a future.

UPDATE: 3PM in NYC:

Al Masdar News, the go-to site for the latest news regarding the Syrian war, headlines, as of 3PM Eastern time, “Pentagon changes disposition of US-led coalition aircraft in Syria”, and reports, from several reliable sources, such as Joseph Dunford, the head of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a U.S. climb-down, and a desire to cooperate with Russia in Syria. If this is not a lie (as so much from the U.S. government has turned out to be), then the U.S. will stop protecting its jihadists in Syria; and, consequently, the war in Syria will end on terms which are suitable to Syria, Russia, and Iran, but which have not heretofore been acceptable to the U.S.-Saudi (and other fundamentalist Sunni) coalition.

The signs, at least as of 3PM, are that Trump will quit the war against the Syrian government, regardless of how much this might disappoint the Sauds (and the Israelis). Looking at the way the Western press are reporting on the matter, they’re going to allow him to withdraw as quietly as possible. So, as soon as Russia made clear that it’s willing to go all the way to defeat the U.S.-Saudi-Sunni-fundamentalist invasion, the West, apparently, will simply quit. All the jihadists in Syria will soon be scrambling to escape from there. Without U.S. protection, they can’t win. But will Russia, Iran, and Syria, simply kill them all, right there? If not, then those jihadists will end up going back ‘home’, wherever that might happen to be, and far more dangerous in those countries than they had been there before.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

14 Comments

  1. Alan says

    Rather suspect Mr Zueese is applying the US/NATO meaning of no fly zone. One where the invader actively disables all air potential of it’s victims state within the area designated. Russia has the authorisation of the host nation, therefore such an interpretation cannot be applied. As the US Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted, once you declare a no fly zone, you are actually declaring war.

    Like

    • Michael Leigh says

      But surely, the USA started the war many years ago by openly declaring it’s plan to act with others in an invasion to remove the current Syrian Government?

      And to reorganise the sovereign Nation of Syria, into a quartet of mini-statelets to satisfy the needs of the Multinational Corporations, and the earlier British designed extreme Islamic Terrorist regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood, and ultimately the continuing immoral USA imperial aspiration of total global enslavement.

      Like

  2. tommytcg says

    And 3 US servicemen killed in Syria NEAR US ‘deconfliction zone’. Revenge?.

    Like

  3. Yonatan says

    Russia has not declared a no-fly zone. Doing that involves destroying all and any military equipment, ground or air, that could threaten Russian / Syria assets. That would include the likes of al Tanf with its long range rockets. Russia has said that all intruding coalition aircraft will be treated as targets. There is no automatic shootdown policy as there would be in a no-fly zone. Each intrusion would be treated on its merits. The recent US shootdown of the Iranian drone is a petty Israeli-style annoyance not even worth bothering with. It was tactically and strategically insignificant. Russia, Syria and Iran will focus on killing terorists, not on stupid escalations that fit in with Zionist desires.

    Like

  4. BigBG says

    Is Eric on Valium? I read the same report on AMN, but couldn’t come to the same conclusion. Even though I would really like to.

    The reason for the NFZ was the ‘collective self-defense’ shoot down of a Syrian Su-22 by a coalition F-18 ‘Super Hornet’ in the vicinity of Tabqa. In other words, a war crime. This forced another suspension of the ‘deconfliction channel’ – prior to the events Eric details above.

    Nowhere do I get the sense that the coalition is planning on packing up, though. In fact, I believe they are planning for a final stand around Dier ez-Zor. There is the small matter of the local commander bringing 2 HIMARs long range rockets up to al-Tanf – which is a statement of intent as they could fire just as far from Jordan – only 18km away. Although the US/UK proxies NSA/FSA/AQ/Whatever are ‘kettled’ in rather a barren bit of tactically useless desert; they can now hit Dier ez-Zor.

    Vanessa Beeley has reported (on UK Column yesterday) of the “ethnic cleansing” of Raqqa – the locals being forced out in favour of a SDF/YPG Kurdish occupation. Daesh/ISIS/AQ/Whatever have already been allowed to escape to the South – toward Palmyra and Dier ez-Zor. I think if Eric where to re-read the report (especially the line “Rankine-Galloway did not give a straight answer…”) – it says that Dunford is trying to re-establish the deconfliction channel – so his forces can continue to cover their escape!!! Not pack up, I’m afraid.

    He’s right about one thing though, the way the Coalition are actively covering for terrorists – an escalation is on the cards. If I were the Russian Commander, I’d think short and soft before NOT allowing the Coalition back in the air!

    Like

    • Manda says

      “Nowhere do I get the sense that the coalition is planning on packing up, though. In fact, I believe they are planning for a final stand around Dier ez-Zor. ”

      Iran is being left out re Dier Ezzor and in general. “Five takeaways from Iran’s missile strike in Syria”
      http://www.atimes.com/article/five-takeaways-irans-missile-strike-syria//

      There’s also this (interesting) read out of Tillerson’s engagement on Qatar and regional situation.

      Like

    • This is Eric Zuesse. I had said that Trump would “withdraw as quietly as possible,” meaning that there won’t be any public announcement of the change in policy. Here is some more from Dunford’s statement on the 19th:
      “prosecute the defeat-ISIS campaign in Syria, which is the reason why we are in Syria”
      “Even as we support their [the anti-Assad Arabs’ and the Kurdish] efforts to seize Raqqa, there is an ongoing effort, led by the State Department [Trump’s least neocon people] to put together a governance body so that as soon as Raqqa is seized, there is effective local governance, that governance will leverage Arab leaders who are from Raqqa and it will also establish a local security force made up of local personnel.”
      “Our stated objective at this point is a stable secure and sovereign Iraq and we are supporting Iraqi security forces in defeating ISIS inside of Iraq, and I think that the issue of a Kurdish referendum is one that will have to be worked out between President Barzani and Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi people.”

      Like

  5. The same LUNATICS that lied the USA into the illegal war against Iraq and the illegal bombing and destruction of Libya are now pushing the US into destroying Syria for the glory of Apartheid Israel, then it will be on to Iran.

    Will Americans ever wake up and realize that these ME wars are being fought for Israel or will it take mushroom clouds appearing before they wake up?

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.