conflict zones, latest, Syria, USA
Comments 57

Why did State Dept. Freeze White Helmets Funding?


by Sophie Mangal

How the White Helmets plug in to the wider picture

A breaking piece was published via CBS news recently that the U.S. frozen funding for Syria’s “White Helmets”.

Why did it happen, probably you would like to ask us…

First, the delay in approving the financing may be connected with the revision of the strategy of using White Helmets as East Ghouta had been lost for the opposition. It impossible now to use the pretext of ‘regime crimes in Ghouta’ using Civil Defense. The militants have lost both an enclave and the resources invested (chemical laboratories, chemicals, studios, staff, weapons, money etc).

Second, some activities in Idlib are hampered by the growing influence of Turkey, which gradually gains control over terrorist groups previously backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. That is why there are numerous reports of a possible transfer of White Helmets activities from Ghouta to Deir Ezzor province where US-controlled terrorists operate and there are a lot of room to work for White Helmets.

The more so, State Dept. support is only a visible part of the funding. The participation of White Helmets in various provocations has been funded with equity of special services (closed funds of the CIA and others). As a rule, they do not report on this item of expenditure publicly as well as on weapons supply to Syria through the Balkans.

Besides, White Helmets are financed not only by the U.S. through the State Department structures but also by various European funds, as well as by the monarchies of the Persian Gulf. So, the possible reduction of funding from Washington does not mean a complete halt to the project. The war hasn’t been over yet and this ‘importing peace’ organization can be used from time to time.

Thus, the opportunities for the White Helmets’ activities are being reduced and the project is gradually losing its significance, which may be the reason for the revision/delay of financing issues, plus in recent months it has become too ‘toxic’ even in the West. Even the founder of Pink Floyd accused White Helmets of having links with terrorists.

You shouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. tried to put White Helmets’ funding on satellites’ shoulders within the overall strategy of shifting military spending to other countries.

Probably we will see not the disappearance of White Helmets but the modification of their work to solve more narrow problems. It means the probability of provocations with their participation will only increase. They will be disappeared completely when the entire territory of Syria will be liberated from the radicals. It is also highly likely that we will see its new rescue operations in Idlib when a new phase of SAA’s offensive starts.

Yet another option is a scheme in which the United States really plans to leave Syria in the long-term. So the State Dept. begin the process of getting rid of all the useless non-performing assets.

Briefly, the so-called White Helmets is the media wing of the jihadist-terrorist organizations that exists for informational support of the activities of opposition on U.S. and Gulf monarchies dime. In fact, U.S. tool to fight Assad, White Helmets, is part of the terrorist infrastructure that is weakening along with other terrorist groups in Syria.


57 Comments

  1. USAma Bin Laden says

    The horror!

    White Helmets is no longer a political asset and indeed is being exposed as a jihadist media auxiliary organization, which is generously sponsored by the UK, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA.

    We need to rebrand them with a more cuddly and endearing image for consumption by the global sheeple!

    Any suggestions?

    Perhaps the Washington PR consultancy firm Hill & Knowlton (famous for its 1990-91 Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Scam) could be hired?

    Like

  2. Meanwhile in the real world, more Spring cleaning in Syria. SyrPer editor reports:

    “Buses not green but clad in many colors, 40 to be exact, have left Bayt Sahm in the East Ghouta to take remnant rodents to either Jaraablus on the Turk border or to Idlib where they can disport with fellow vermin of every ethnicity and culture. Like backpacking college students of the 70’s, they can now engage in cultural exchanges with Chechens, Uighers, Uzbekis, Albanians, Eskimos and Trobriand warriors. With their caterwauling brats screeching their lungs out like nocturnal cats, they shall wend their way into a new world of malignancy – where homosexuals are routinely put to death because of they way they were born; where non-rodents can be swindled and shook down for the dishonest tax that’s meant to protect them; where women are handed from one rat to another in a solemn ritual of brotherliness and sexual socialism. It’s all coming to Idlib and Jaraablus. And so is the Syrian Army.”

    Like

  3. Edwige says

    There’s an interesting scene in the film THE OTTOMAN LIEUTENANT about an idealistic nurse who has gone to serve in the Ottoman Empire for humanitarian/religious reasons. About halfway through the film, she gets “the talk” from an obvious operative that of course her organisation is not there as a dis-interested party and is there to promote various geo-political agendas.

    The film also sort of argues that the Armenian massacres were caused by Russia!

    Like

    • @Edwige. 21stC US film based on 19thC UK spin of ME geopolitics.

      “The ‘Dogs of War’ are loose and the rugged Russian Bear,
      Full bent on blood and robbery, has crawled out of his lair, …

      Chorus: We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo if we do,
      We’ve got the Ships, we’ve got the Men, we’ve got the Money too.
      We’ve fought the Bear before, and while we’re Britons true,
      The Czar shall not have Constantinople.”

      Like

  4. vexarb says

    Meawhile in the real world an Axis of Resistance has won in the Lebanese Parliament. The Christian / Muslim alliance Hezb’Allah (God’s Army) has beaten the AZC alliance financed by Israel’s ally Saudi Arabia (Mammon’s Army).

    Like

  5. Jen says

    Perhaps the US State Department plans to start funding Violet Syria directly if it’s not doing so already.

    https://violetsyria.org/en/

    The other likelihood is Foggy Bottom will funnel the funds to the White Helmets or a replacement organisation indirectly so that the money cannot be traced.

    Like

  6. Aproudsafavid says

    Of being seen as the godfather of these [°White Helmets”] terrorists in the Middle East, and yet, disowning them before they have killed enough. We see, not for the first time, the Americans demonstrate how callus of cowboys they still are.
    To that, we can only tell these utter bonehead Arab terrorists: Time is up! Regardless what future holds for Syria. The free & brave people of Syria and their friends in the region, shall pursue and hunt every one of you murderers down; just like diseased animals and put you to sword.

    Like

  7. Gary Weglarz says

    For some strange reason the valiant White Helmets haven’t set up shop in Yemen. How odd? With their “connections,” false-flag expertise, and obvious “people skills,” one could imagine them doing so much fine work explaining to the world how the massive civilian deaths and suffering in Yemen are directly attributable to those twin evil monsters Assad and Putin. How quickly they would be breathlessly telling us, we oh so moral yet oddly impressionable Westerners, that Saudi Arabia, with Western weapons and support, is a true humanitarian presence in Yemen, defending the rights of the people of Yemen by insuring that those they don’t slaughter outright will instead die of cholera in short order. The White Helmets could get a whole new Netflix documentary and maybe some more Western film and humanitarian awards out of this. Maybe they need a new agent?

    Like

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      I rather think that the Yemenis would deal with ANY allies of the Wahhabist vermin.

      Like

  8. Humbaba says

    I see the WH as a dirty tricks outfit of the Empire a bit like Cambridge Analytica (CA). Both are controlled from London. Both have been compromised beyond redemption. Like Richard Nix was first sacked from CA before that outfit was close, James le Mesurier seems to have disappeared from the WH before that outfit will be run down. Like CA has since been recreated with the same backers and the same people, the WH will reemerge under a different name to support the dirty tricks department of the empire for the next war. This war is lost, but their modus operandi was effective.

    Like

  9. Joerg says

    From the article above: “They will be disappeared completely when the entire territory of Syria will be liberated from the radicals.
    I hate to say it: But this will never happen! Because the Syrians will loose the war and Syria will get divided. This because the Putin Government will pull out of Syria. Because Putin/Medwedew/Lawrow will – like always before – bow their head to US/Nato. See https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/05/05/russia-washingtons-next-vassal/ – also read those sharp articles cited by Roberts there.
    ( Next I will cite several links – more than three. So in order not to get blocked I will cite those links without “http”. Please add this “http” before any given link)

    Long before this article of Paul Craig Roberts I also came to the conclusion that Putin not only was but STILL IS a “Yeltsin-man”. I only forgot in the meantime.

    Look at this:
    1) Some weeks ago I was shocked that Julian Assange was attacked here. One of the arguments against Julian was that he supported the George-W.-Bush-conspiracy-theory and mocked critics of that conspiracy theory. And yes, I disagree here with Julian. But Putin did the same! Without any political need
    “.(MOSCOW RT) – Claims that the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies are “complete nonsense,” Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told attendees of a youth forum..” ( ://www.salem-news.com/articles/may062014/russia-911-inside.php).

    2) Iraq:
    Instead of putting out the fire of the second US-war against Iraq Putin even poured oil into the fire in 2004 by saying: “.Putin says Iraq planned US attack.” (://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm)
    Or this: “.Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein’s regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad — an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush’s contention that Iraq was a threat. ….‘ (://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630187/posts).

    3) Iran:
    a) In 2006 absolutely unjustified sanctions were installed against Iran. And the already very poor people of Iran were thrown into a dramatic economic crisis. The Putin regime – instead of blocking this – agreed to these sanctions!
    b) When, since the middle of the last decade, Israel threatened Iran twice a week with war and attacks, Iran in 2007 bought the S 300 defence rocket system from Russia. Instead of delivering this defence system the Putin regime blocked the delivery and Iran sued Russia before an international court:
    “.In April 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin repealed the ban. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the decision, saying Moscow’s voluntary embargo on S-300 deliveries was no longer necessary due to the progress in talks on Iran’s nuclear program..” (://www.iran-daily.com/News/170279.html)
    The important words here are “.(Russian) voluntary embargo.“, because the existing sanctions against Iran didn’t sanction the delivery of the s 300 system!

    4.) Syria: .
    a) In 2012 the Putin regime refused to send back to Syria (being in an desperate war against invading mercenary armies) several Syrian military helicopters that had been in Kaliningrad for repair only. (s://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9401393/Russian-ship-with-helicopters-bound-for-Syria-turns-back.html).

    b) In spring of 2016 the Syrians – with the existentially needed help of Russian military – had nearly defeated these invading mercenary armies (ISIS, Al Kaida et. al.). Only – possibly – two more months were needed to allow Syria to regain the full sovereignty over it’s territory. But Putin didn’t want this. Just weeks away from victory Putin hastily ordered all Russian military out of Syria so that those invading armies (heavily supported by US/Nato with training, arms and intelligence) could regain the lost territory and now destroy all Syrian cities and the Syrian infrastructure. (since then Syrian cities look even worse than German cities in 1945!).

    5.) North Korea:
    The North Koreans didn’t test nuclear bombs. They only testes rockets – with does not contradict any sanctions. Nonetheless Putin in the Security Council – with no political need – agreed to new sanctions against North Korea.

    Not only that:
    “.Russia has begun ordering Kim Jong-un’s workers home in line with harsh new sanctions introduced last December by the UN Security Council. The move was confirmed today by the country’s ambassador to North Korea Alexander Matsegora. He said Russia had agreed to send workers home but argued it is a serious “blow” to the country’s economy..” (s://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915977/north-korea-news-russia-deports-workers-un-sanctions-kim-jong-un).
    So why did Putin find it necessary to additionally(!!) give North Korea this “.also this “serious “blow” to the country’s economy.“??!!

    6.) “RIA Novosty” and also when it changed it name to “Sputniknews” and also the new “RT” always took over the abusing word “.regime.” from western MSM: They always denounce and denounced Iraq as “.the Saddam Hussein regime.“, Libya as “.Gaddafi’s regime.“, Syria as “.Assad’s regime.“. They never spoke or speak of ‘the regime in Riad’ or ‘the regime in Israel`… Washington, London, Paris, Berlin’ and so on.
    And to this day they always take over this western MSM propaganda-trick to identify a country with a person: Serbia = Milosovic, Iraq=Saddam Hussein, Libya=Gaddafi, Syria= Assad.

    Like

    • Jim Scott says

      You seem to be holding the lily somewhat and I don’t think you understand that Russia/Putin requires a delicate hand in balancing the interwoven relationships that make up the conflicts in Syria, or the wider geopolitical forces that require a very astute and finely balanced approach to relationships between the main protagonists involved in the breakdown of the Western Empire. By the way the word regime simply means a system of government.

      Like

      • Joerg says

        @Jim Scott
        I don’t think you understand that Russia/Putin requires a delicate hand in balancing the interwoven relationships that make up the conflicts in Syria
        Yes, Jim, “a delicate hand“!!
        I wounder if you noticed that I forgot something above – and that was Libya:
        6) Libya:
        Without any need Putin/Medvedev/Lawrow in the security Council of the UN agreed to the “Flight Ban”! This although Gaddafi never “bombed” his own people. Yes, Poroshenko of Ukraine does this – but Gaddafi never did. He didn’t because first of all, he only had a representative job. Once, he compared his job to that of “the Queen”. And as much as the Queen doesn’t bomb (no job in the executive) – Gaddafi couldn’t. But also the then Libyan Government didn’t bomb it’s own people. This was all a lie of western MSM – word by word repeated then by “RIA Novosti” (now “Sputniknews”).
        On s://www.rt.com/politics/medvedev-un-resolution-lybia/ You, Jim Scott, will find this: ““We will not take part in any operations to close the airspace, we will not send any contingents if, God forbid, this operation would eventually be the land one, which I cannot exclude today,” Medvedev told reporters.”
        In this very bad translation into English (“/em>…this operation would eventually be the land one“) Medvedev meant a GROUND INVASION of US/Nato troopers. And with “God forbid….which I cannot exclude today” he meant, that Russia would never object a ground invasion by Nato (only God might possibly forbid – but as we know he never has done something like this once until today).

        And you, Jim Scott, call this “a delicate hand“??!!
        Back in 2011 You, Jim Scott, would probably have said the same to me if I had criticised Putin for his policy in respect to the attack of US/Nato against the Libyan people.
        And where are the Libyans now? And when, Jim Scott, do the surviving Libyans ever able to enjoy Putins “a delicate hand” ??

        Like

        • Jim Scott says

          I don’t think the USA has changed its mind about Syria but now the white helmets have been exposed they are no longer seen as an asset by their patrons. Just like ISIS and the Kurds and Saddam and Bin Laden they pass their use by date. Now they have Theresa May and Buffoon Boris to paint Russia as a terrorist country. Look for more chemical attacks in Western Countries and particularly in Europe.

          Like

        • Jim Scott says

          You have misunderstood what I meant by a delicate hand in Syria. The situation there is more complex politically than Libya where the Agreement was a no fly agreement that was ignored by the NATO countries who went way beyond their UN Charter by illegally bombing the Libyan army and infrastructure in support of the invading terrorist groups. Putin did not agree to this at all. In Syria we see a constant changing of alliances by Turkey and Qatar while the USA moves it’s support from ISIS and Al Qaeda to the PKK and it was clearly involved in the coup attempt to dethrone Erdogan. Then we observed the USA having an internal struggle between the establishment neoconservatives and Trumps team over US withdrawal or conversely upping the ante by putting in more US ground troops.
          Putin and Lavrov have clearly outpointed the US team in this department by moderating Turkeys outlook and not intervening in Turkeys attacks on the US backed Kurds while limiting Turkeys expansion to the Kurdish held areas. Furthermore Russia’s diplomacy has created a division in the unity of the Arab States.
          If Putin had opted to bombing US or Turkish troops we would now see all out war resulting in millions more deaths and possibly a nuclear war.
          To me Russia and Syria seem to be the only sane players in this dirty war so I think your fears about Russia’s intentions are overhyped. Russia has everything to lose by allowing Syria and Iran to be destroyed by their enemies. Syria is Russia’s only external military base and Turkey a NATO member controls the Straits of Nokia and the ability to lock in the Russian naval fleet Putin has to remain an ally or at least on good terms with Turkey. Furthermore many Western people like me have little respect for our leaders and are more likely to believe the Russians than our own leaders. Putin and Lavrov are winning the PR war in the West.

          Like

      • He understands very well, Jim. His post is a mixture of deceptions and lies.

        4.) Syria: .
        a) In 2012 the Putin regime refused to send back to Syria (being in an desperate war against invading mercenary armies) several Syrian military helicopters that had been in Kaliningrad for repair only.

        Reading his own link, it is clear that it wasn’t ‘Putin’s regime’ that withheld the helicopters but an insurance dispute and international pressure that only delayed the return.

        4b)

        According to Mr Joerg, there was little destruction in Syrian cities prior to 2016 and Syria was only a few weeks from complete victory when Russia withdrew its military support. They did announce a small withdrawal of certain elements of Russian hardware but to claim what Mr Joerg did is a complete lie.

        As you quite rightly said Jim, Putin has to tread a fine path through the diplomatic trip-wires set for him. An indisputable fact is that if it weren’t for him, Syria would now be completely destroyed (like Libya) and we would now be seeing Hezbollah being sandwiched between Israel and their allies (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc) fighting for survival.
        The rest of Mr Joerg’s long rant is either misinterpretation or irrelevant.

        Like

    • @Joerg. “We’re doomed! I tell Ye, doomed!”.
      But “Don’t panic! Don’t panic!”
      Because “It’s being so cheerful as keeps me going”.

      Like

    • As an admirer of Vladimir Putin I would be more than happy to challenge most, if not all, of your above observations. What shines through to me is that with one exception (which I shall turn to in a minute) all the decisions you mention are either based on the premise that progress is being made towards peace and it is not therefore necessary to continue with what might otherwise be perceived as encouraging or supporting acts of ‘aggression’, or he supports measures such as sanctions which he thinks might allay undesirable confrontation between superpowers even if he thinks the recipient of the sanctions is not actually the wrongdoer. In other words he is very much a political strategist rather than just perceiving things in black and white. Unfortunately I suspect he has now learnt that he must no longer assume that certain world superpowers have morals which justify his tactical and sensible approach.
      The one area that you mention that I take issue with is his position on Iraq. Putin was always against military action in Iraq and still opposed it after it happened on the grounds that “international norms and procedures weren’t observed” (some things don’t change!). You quote an extract from a publication in which it is stated that “Putin said…his Government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein’s regime was preparing attacks…”. In fact Putin actually specifically said that there was NO evidence that Saddam’s regime was involved in any planned terrorist attacks…[but] there was “information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist attacks”. As far as I am aware we have no reason to doubt that what he said was true and was passed on to the US in good faith with every intention to prevent planned atrocities.

      Like

    • reinertorheit says

      I can promise you that RIA/Novosty has not changed its name. I walk past their building on Zubovsky boulevard twice a week, and the name’s on the wall in huge lettering outside in the street. RT, Rossiya Segodnya, and various other media outlets are brands which are owned and operated by RIA Novosty.

      [[ This because the Putin Government will pull out of Syria ]]

      No, that’s not going to happen. Moreover, the Putin administration has overwhelming public support for its miltary operations in Syria. I’m afraid that’s a lie which the Donald Dump regime enjoys repeating – because they believe all nations are as feckless as they are, ready to back out of any operation which has seen the slightest setback. Russia isn’t run governed by focus groups, like the USA. Russia does what it believes is right, and perseveres. What Dumpy and his simian friends fail to realise is that when Russians encounter setbacks, they become only still more determined to persist in their endeavours until they are successful.

      The same reasoning applies to western sanctions imposed on Russia. Faced with the imbecility of NATO/EU/SameThing sanctions on Crimea, Russia has instead built one of the world’s largest open-sea bridges, so that people in Crimea will continue to benefit from the investment in services and infrastructure which Russia now provides. After decades of Ukrainian incompetence and deliberate resource-starvation, Crimean people are finally getting schools, hospitals, roads, and backbone infrastructure which accords with the standards basic human decency expects. If that means Russia has to build a bridge to provide them – then Russia builds a bridge.

      Like

    • @ Joerg

      The topic named “Why did State Dept. Freeze White Helmets Funding?”.
      It’s about reasons why the US (I emphasize – the US, not Russia/Putin) reduce funding of the terrorist PR agency called “White Helmets”.
      That’s all.
      Not a single word about Russia/Putin in this topic.

      It seems to me you are just a Putin/Russia hater.
      All you wrote looks like anti-Putin propaganda. A childish propaganda.
      And sometime you directly lie – as you did in your 4.a point (i’ll explain it below).

      After all, why you are so concentrated personally on Putin?
      Once again, i repeat – not a single word about Russia/Putin in this topic..

      (1)

      In your first point you said “…I disagree here with Julian. But Putin did the same!”

      Why Putin? Why you don’t mention any other world leader(s)? The leader of mighty China, for example. Or India’s leader. Or leaders of Canada, Italy, Germany, Japan, France, UK, Australia, Brazil and any other country.
      But no, for some reason you’re focused exactly on Putin. Only on Putin.
      Does he owe smth personally to you, or to anybody else? Just wondering…

      Well, all right, you blame Putin for him not saying that “terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies” and that this is a “complete nonsense” (as Putin supposedly said).

      I was not even going to spend time on discussing all the stupidity that you wrote.
      But it seems i have to say some words on this issue.

      It is believed that politics is a business of adult serious people. Putin is adult. He is a serious responsible politician. He (personally) bears responsibility for all what he’s saying.
      Do you really allow the idea that Putin would say this – “OK guys, i think terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies” ?
      This is not serious. This kind of stuff can be discussed on various TV shows, on Internet forums, or in other places.
      But this is not what a serious politician can allow himself to say, especially publicly.

      I repeat, Putin is a serious responsible politician. Plus – and you can adore, don’t like or hate it – Putin is a politician with very good manners, very well educated person.
      Just check out any of his public appearances, statements, interviews, press-conferences etc.
      Check out how he’s behave himself with mass media, with journalists etc.
      He’s always very delicate and polite with his interlocutors.

      I’m not gonna to sing a laudatory ode to Putin. I just stating the facts.
      And these facts mean that Putin physically couldn’t say smth like this “terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies” (EVEN if he, maybe, really think so deep in his mind).

      Btw, this fits perfectly Putin’s constant statement that Russia does not interfere in the business of other countries.
      He stress this very often, in various interviews or during press-conferences.
      Investigation of 9/11 tragedy is an internal business of the US.
      Russia, and personally Putin, does not consider it acceptable to comment on this issue, and especially to blame someone.
      That’s the point.

      When did Putin say this (i’m not even sure he said this, but nevermind – let’s think these words are true) – somewhere in 2008-2012, when he was a Prime Minister of Russia?

      Just imagine for a second… Putin, being a Prime Minister in 2008-2012, and, obviously, already planning his next President period (2012-2018), decided to publicly say “terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies”. In so doing, Putin in fact would directly blame US government for organising awful terrorist act against their own people. Putin, being a Prime Minister, and understanding that he has big chances to become a President of Russia again (on 2012 elections), perfectly know that if he’ll become a President he’ll have to deal with he US.

      So do you really think Putin would blame US government for organising terrorist act against American society, while perfectly understanding that a couple years later he’ll have to deal with this US government?
      The answer is obvious.

      (2) Iraq.

      In your second point you said “Instead of putting out the fire of the second US-war against Iraq Putin even poured oil into the fire in 2004 by saying: “.Putin says Iraq planned US attack”.

      Yes, Putin did say that Russian special services warned US special services about some terrorist acts being planned by Iraqi command between 9/11 and beginning of US’ aggression on Iraq in 2003. I saw this video. Putin said it in Astana, Kazakhstan, on 18.06.2004.

      First thing – Putin said it publicly when US already started the war in Iraq. So Putin’s public statement made no difference – because the war in Iraq already happened. Moreover, there were no signs that this war will over soon. I mean, If Putin would not made this public statement – the war would be over soon, but since he made his statement, US decided to continue this war.
      Is this your “logic”, is this what you want to say? Well, it can work for stupid little kids. Maybe.

      Second thing, and most important – if such warnings from Russian special services to US special services were made, then there were reasons for this.
      After all, what do you think – it’s better to let people die in terrorist act than to warn a special departments so they can prevent a terrorist act?
      Sorry, I don’t think so.

      I’d like to remind what happened in 2013.
      Russia warned US special services about terrorist act being planned in US by Tsarnaev brothers. But US special services ignored(!) these warnings.
      We know the result – explosion on Boston marathon on 15.04.2013.
      Innocent people died.

      By blaming Putin (for his statement), you prefer that American people die in possible terrorist act in early 2000-es? Or it’s still better to get warning and maybe to save many lives?

      And the main thing – should i remind that Russia voted against US’ aggression on Iraq in 2003?
      That’s what you really need to know/remember.

      (3) Iran.

      In you a) point you said “In 2006 absolutely unjustified sanctions were installed against Iran. And the already very poor people of Iran were thrown into a dramatic economic crisis. The Putin regime – instead of blocking this – agreed to these sanctions!.

      First of all – do you got infected with bad manners from Nikki Haley a.k.a. “talking head”? Do you call authorities in all countries a “regime”?

      You mentioned “absolutely unjustified sanctions” against Iran.
      Well, this is an issue to discuss – justified or unjustified, but i’d like to remind that in 2003 Iran nullified Sa’dabad agreement, concluded/signed by Iran (in October 2003) with UK, Germany and France, and started again a nuclear activity (uranium dressing/preparation).

      In early 2006 IAEA warned Iran that if uranium dressing/preparation will not be terminated, then this issue will be transferred to the UNSC.
      Iran ignored this warning.
      So “Iran dossier” was transferred to the UNSC. The very first resolution (#1696) on Iran was adopted on January 31, 2006.
      And, again, this was just a warning. I mean, this resolution did not imply any sanctions.
      But Iran once again ignored this new warning.
      Only after this sanctions were imposed on Iran.
      The first “sanctions resolution” (#1737) was adopted on December 23, 2006.
      Let’s note – practically it’s a whole year (first resolution 31.01.2006 – second resolution 23.12.2006) for Iran to change something, but nothing was changed.
      In some sense this forced the world community to act harder.

      And one more thing – this first “sanctions resolution” (#1737) against Iran was adopted by the whole UNSC.
      I mean, all 15 members of UNSC (5 constant + 10 inconstant) said “yes” to this resolution. So why do you “blame” only Putin for this? Why not blaming China, for example?
      That’s very strange that you put all the “responsibility” personally on Putin.

      In your b) point you said “Iran in 2007 bought the S 300 defence rocket system from Russia. Instead of delivering this defence system the Putin regime blocked the delivery and Iran sued Russia before an international court”.

      I doubt you’re from Russia to know/to understand all the details, so i just would like to let you know a fact that this S-300 deal with Iran was banned when D.Medvedev was a President of Russia, not V.Putin.
      It seems now you have to call it “Medvedev regime”? Go on.

      The funniest thing is that you blame “Putin regime” for banning this S-300 deal (though it was D.Medvedev who did it), but it was Putin who cancelled this ban in 2015 and decided that Iran must get S-300.
      Why in 2015? Well, all the events have their reasons and circumstances. Must not exclude what happened in 2015 – the famous Iran nuclear deal.
      Btw, on April 2, 2015 six countries (5 constant UNSC members + Germany) and Iran reached an agreement on important parameters of the future Iran nuclear program deal. Less than two weeks later (on April 13, 2015, if i’m right) Putin cancelled ban to supply Iran with S-300 complexes.

      In 2007 Russia and Iran signed a contract for five S-300 complexes to be supplied to Iran.
      On June 9, 2010 UNSC adopted a new “sanctions resolution” against Iran (#1929).
      This resolution implied a ban to supply any kinds of military equipment/technology to Iran.
      This resolution was extended to all UN member states. Including Russia, of course.
      So what makes you think Russia should have violated this resolution?

      D.Medvedev, being a President of Russia at that time, decided that the ban on the supply of military equipment to Iran concerns including the contract for the supply of S-300 complexes to Iran.

      In reality it was no so. I mean, S-300 complexes are the defensive arms, and it does not directly fall under the power of #1929 resolution.
      But D.Medvedev decided to interpret this resolution this way – by banning S-300 deal with Iran.
      There were reasons for this.

      As you maybe remember, in 2009 H.Clinton presented to S.Lavrov a famous “reload button” (in fact it turns to be “overload button” because US could not write a Russian word correctly). Period of 2009-2010 was an attempt of “reload period” in relationships between US and Russia. In particular, D.Medvedev chose tightening the sanctions regime against Iran in the context of the policy of “reloading” relations with the US.

      Russia was not obliged to ban S-300 deal with Iran, but Russia did it. It was a decision in good will, and it was D.Medvedev’s decision (not Putin’s).
      It was done to improve relationships with the US in context of “reloading”.

      We can argue it was good or bad decision. Personally i think it was a bad decision.
      You just have to know that there were reasons for this decision (UNSC resolution #1929 + desire to improve relationships with US).
      Russian leaders (at least after Yeltsin) never do anything without serious reasons.
      All the decisions have their reasons and circumstances.

      (4) Syria

      In your a) point you said “In 2012 the Putin regime refused to send back to Syria (being in an desperate war against invading mercenary armies) several Syrian military helicopters that had been in Kaliningrad for repair only”.

      This is a direct lie.

      Yes, the helicopters were on repair in Kaliningrad region of Russia.
      Yes, after the repair was finished, Russia sent the helicopters back to Syria.
      Yes, a vessel called “Alaed” with Syrian helicopters on board came back to Kaliningrad, Russia.

      But why do you hide the reason why “Alaed” vessel came back to Russia?

      The truth is this:
      The vessel was stopped at the coast of Scotland.
      The vessel was detained by British authorities.
      The British authorities took control of the Russian vessel and forced it to change the course.
      UK explained it this way: “There is a weapon on board that Syrian authorities can use against civilians”.
      British insurance company “Standard Club” nullified the insurance of all the vessels of the Russian company FEMKO (including “Alaed” vessel) on demand of the British government.
      Without insurance, the vessel can not go anywhere and can not enter any seaport worldwide.

      Having no insurance, the vessel with Syrian helicopters on board was forced to come back to Russia.

      So your claim that “Putin regime refused to send back to Syria several Syrian military helicopters” has nothing common with reality.
      This is a direct lie.

      In your b) point you said “In spring of 2016 the Syrians – with the existentially needed help of Russian military – had nearly defeated these invading mercenary armies (ISIS, Al Kaida et. al.). Only – possibly – two more months were needed to allow Syria to regain the full sovereignty over it’s territory. But Putin didn’t want this. Just weeks away from victory Putin hastily ordered all Russian military out of Syria so that those invading armies (heavily supported by US/Nato with training, arms and intelligence) could regain the lost territory and now destroy all Syrian cities and the Syrian infrastructure. (since then Syrian cities look even worse than German cities in 1945!)”.

      This is a very strange opinion.
      Are you a military expert? I doubt.

      What on earth makes you think that in Spring 2016 “Only – possibly – two more months were needed to allow Syria to regain the full sovereignty over it’s territory” ?

      I remind, Spring 2016 in Syria:

      Aleppo is not yet liberated (it was liberated in December 2016).
      Raqqa is not yet liberated (it was liberated much later, only in Autumn 2017).
      Deir-ez-Zor is not yet liberated (it was liberated much later, in Autumn 2017).
      There’re constant shelling of Damascus by militants from East Ghouta (East Ghouta was liberated in March 2018).

      So what the hell makes you think “two more months were needed to allow Syria to regain the full sovereignty over it’s territory” ?
      I can only call this kind of opinion an incredible stupidity.
      Or direct disinformation.

      In Spring 2016 there were no even a slightest signs that Syrians will completely defeat all enemies soon and will be able to “regain the full sovereignty” (as you said) over territory of Syria.

      Putin declared a partial withdrawal of the Russian forces from Syria, because specific military tasks, which were topical at that time, were fulfiled.
      Plus, Russia adopted this decision in consultation with Bashar Assad (but not unilaterally).
      So, only part of the Russian troops (aviation) was withdrawn from Syria.
      The remaining Russian aviation continued to support the Syrian army when it was necessary.

      (5) North Korea

      You said that “The North Koreans didn’t test nuclear bombs. They only testes rockets – with does not contradict any sanctions. Nonetheless Putin in the Security Council – with no political need – agreed to new sanctions against North Korea.

      It’s not even worth discussing.
      The North Koreans didn’t test nuclear bombs?
      Excuse me, but what did they test then? Toys? Plastic pseudo-bombs?

      The DPRK has conducted multiple tests of nuclear weapons, and has never denied this.
      The country conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013 etc.
      For example, in September 2016 the DPRK carried out the fifth in its history of a nuclear bomb explosion test.
      Btw, it was the second explosion of the year (the first one – in January 2016).
      The power of the explosive device was then estimated at 10 kilotons.
      Because of this explosion, an emergency meeting was convened by the UN Security Council…
      Moreover, in 2017 the DPRK has also tested a hydrogen bomb.

      Your phrase “with no political need” is very funny.
      Yes, “with no political need”. The DPRK keep explode nuclear bombs. They also test hydrogen bomb.
      No problems at all, right? Considering a fact that all this happen right on the Far East borders of Russia.
      UNSC adopt appropriate resolutions. Let’s note – these resolutions are adopted unanimously. I mean, including China, and other members besides Russia.
      So why not blaming China, for example? What’s the problem?
      Or your aim is to blame Putin only?

      Like

  10. John Marks says

    Austerity Britain is picking up the tab.
    Theresa May just announced a £35m taxpayers’ gift to the ‘White Helmets’.
    Megalomanic Macron and craven May both seem even more warmongering than Trump.

    Liked by 3 people

    • John Marks: “Macron and May seem even more warmongering than Trump”.
      Obvious Sykes-Picot. We diddled France in WW1 — nabbed the Mesopotamian oilfields while they were fighting in Europe. Sykes let Picot take Syria because nobody knew it had oil at the time. Now that Syria is known to have some puddles of oil and a huge lake of offshore gas, France wants back in. This is strictly a family affair: French Baron de Rothschild’s puppet coming to help English Lord Rothschild’s puppet divide the spoil of gas and oil. Alors? (shrugs).

      “How to make a rabbit stew. First catch your rabbit.” — Mrs.Beeton’s Book of Cookery and Empire Management

      Like

  11. Harry Law says

    The US will never give up in Syria, plan number 1. Regime change, failed. Plan 2. destroy as much of the Syrian economy and infrastructure as possible, reasonably successful but without the killer blows [thanks to Russia].
    Now plan 3. According to Lavrov the US want to partition Syria, can you remember when the US assured everyone that Syria should remain a united sovereign state, they lied, now they are allocating money to SDF and other forces to police the borders and internal security.
    “To accomplish U.S. military objectives, “partner force” generation in Syria will be comprised of local forces that are demographically representative, appropriately vetted, trained, and equipped to ensure a safe and secure environment and capable of countering ISIS [Daesh],” it said in the budget proposal.
    According to the proposal, the Pentagon plans to allocate $162.6 million of the $300 million on weapons, equipment, and vehicles, $8 million on base life support which provides basic humanitarian needs, $28 million on transportation and staging costs, and $101.5 million for operational sustainment.
    Among the weapons being planned to be sent include 25,000 AK-47 automatic rifles, 1,500 light machine guns, 500 heavy machine guns, 400 RPG-7 rocket launchers, 95 sniper rifles, 20 60mm mortars and 60 120mm mortars. [The Daily Sabah]
    When you read countering Daesh, read countering Assad. No one can deal with such snakes, the US will not go quietly into the night because they will not relinquish as the US state Department said “It’s a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history.” “It’s strategically the most important part of the world”. What Russia needs to understand [and I think they do] is they are not dealing with a bunch of boy scouts, but with an entity who think they are the ‘exceptional masters of the universe’ until that is, someone disabuses them of that notion.

    Like

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The Oded Yinon Plan DEMANDS that Syria be vivisected because, as Knesset Deputy Speaker Smotrich, a Likud charmer, observed ‘Damascus belongs to the (his people)’. And what Israel wants, its puppets (USA, UK, France etc) deliver.

      Like

    • reinertorheit says

      [[ What Russia needs to understand [and I think they do] is they are not dealing with a bunch of boy scouts, ]]

      Oh no? Russia is winning in Syria, and the Orange Toddler (aka Boy-Scout In Chief) is losing hand-over-fist. Get used to losing – because it’s going to become the meme for which the single-term incumbency of President Dump will go down in history – before he hands the reins to President Pompeo.

      Like

    • Now plan 3. According to Lavrov the US want to partition Syria…

      This is not new. Yes, the US want to split Syria. They can’t do it in central/main part of the country, but they do it in the north.
      Plus, the fate of the At-Tanf area in southern Syria is not clear.
      Americans will not leave this place voluntarily. Then, must be expelled by force..

      But there’s a new threat now.
      Recently i saw a report. A new “chemical attack” provocation is being prepared somewhere in Deir-ez-Zor area.
      It’s a US’ illegal base there, and US soldiers will take part in this new CW provocation.
      It (CW provocation) planned to happen near the US base, so this could be used as a pretext to fully invade Syria (Iraq scenario).
      US war dogs will say – “look, “Syrian regime” try to kill our soldiers with CW! We can’t stay aside. We must do smth”.

      Like

  12. Harry Stotle says

    Lets hope it means the US has admitted defeat in Syria so no longer require the White Helmets to distract from their role in aiding and abetting Sunni Jihadists.

    How can people in the west really get angry about an ‘insurgency’, or ‘moderate rebels’, or plucky volunteers saving Syrians from the rubble providing the victims are Sunnis?

    The Guardian has been at heart of promoting the White Helmets myth – Freedland, Monbioy, Solon, and the derranged Simon Tisdall need to take a long hard look at themselves.

    Like

    • Jim Scott says

      I don’t think the USA has changed its mind about Syria but now the white helmets have been exposed they are no longer seen as an asset by their patrons. Just like ISIS and the Kurds and Saddam and Bin Laden they pass their use by date. Now they have Theresa May and Buffoon Boris to paint Russia as a terrorist country. Look for more chemical attacks in Western Countries and particularly in Europe.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. As Sophie says: it does not mean they are being defunded. Fashion icon and amateur historian Karen Pierce has told the UN that the UK will be giving $138mn this year: for a total of $3.5bn throughout the war. Not all for the WH, I’m sure we’ll spread the love around. Probably not to Jaysh al-Islam: as the blaggard crime boss walked off with the cash before ($47mn! Where did a murderous bunch of chlorine and cage loving militants get a spare $47mn? No wonder we can’t fund a real economy at home?) The WH are a state protected asset and will be preserved as such. Perhaps we should consider defunding the states instead if they ideologically choose to fund terror and death: not progressive tax redistribution or social welfare and life?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/humanitarian-situation-in-syria
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/former-jaysh-al-islam-leader-stole-millions-to-make-business-in-turkey-reports/

    Like

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Perhaps we could crowd-source rewards for identifying White Helmets child-killers, and for delivering them to Syria to face justice. Perhaps Bellingcat could lend his expertise.

      Like

    • I wonder how Karen Pierce would explain the UK’s failure to donate a penny to the volunteers of the genuine Syrian Civil Defence formed in 1953 and a founding member of the International Civil Defence Organisation which among other things helps to train Civil Defence groups worldwide. The real SCD work selflessly and in genuinely dangerous conditions to rescue the victims of terrorist atrocities throughout Syria, not only in Syria’s Government controlled areas but also within the boundaries of terrorist strongholds. They also have a recognised emergency contact number in Syria (113) whilst the White Helmets do not.

      Liked by 1 person

      • A very good point, Judy: where the money goes is first and foremost ideologically determined. It is not hard for us to reverse determine and reconstruct the ideology a posteriori …from effect to cause. This allows the rational formulation of questioning the basis of $3.5bn of “humanitarian aid”? I suspect both the faux defunding by the State Dept and the cancellation of the Media on Trial event have in common the self-preservation of the legitamacy of the state. ‘Cos they really fooled us this time!

        Like

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          I’ve long had trouble imagining how the West could become any more Evil than it is-but I have faith that hate will find a way.

          Like

      • On re-reading this I think it might be helpful for me to clarify that the ‘real’ SCD is not just there to rescue and assist victims of terrorist atrocities as my comment may have implied, hence the reason they have been in existence for 65 years. They are all volunteers who are on hand to deal with the generality of emergency situations as a ‘first response’ unit and and, where appropriate, to support qualified and professional emergency services. These are the true unsung heroes. Presumably they would benefit from more funding to enable them to buy decent camera equipment!

        Like

  14. flamingo says

    Oh these thugs will re-emerge all right. Maybe they will be re-branded as the Kurdish white crescent in Afrin. Now that the Kurd resident population has been entirely evicted from Afrin after a century and all their property stolen by the terrorists from Ghouta or wherever, these charming killers are already there to ‘help resettle’ their brothers in arms. They are saudi and turkish puppets still.

    The USA state department only ever does crimes against humanity it is devoid of compassion, peace or consideration of any people’s welfare. It has franchised them to the duplicitous embrace of the saudi and turkish snakes.

    Like

  15. Sapo says

    Would be great if this article were written in readable English, instead of what resembles a machine translation.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Why indeed? The convolutions of the AZC’s MI5 / MI6 / CIA military so-called Intelligence:

    [I lifted the illustration from Syrian Perspective]

    Like

    • cirsium says

      I thought James Le Mesurier had indeed suggested that the “services” of the White Helmets were needed in Venezuela and the Philippines.

      Like

      • White Helmets have already made an appearance in Venezuela, Philippines and Malaysia. This is covered in Caitlin Johnstone’s excellent illuminating article “The Empire’s Horrifying Plot to Franchise the White Helmets Worldwide”. (Sorry, I am still endeavouring to get up to speed with late 20th century technology, never mind the 21st, so I haven’t yet worked out how to post links!)

        Like

  17. summitflyer says

    At the very least ,it is good to hear that Washington is reevaluating the benefit (sic) of the White helmets.
    They have become somewhat of a hot potato given the last episode of theatrics in Douma.
    I have to ask if someone in Washington is suddenly becoming wise of the situation with the white helmets or are they just calling for time out in order to regroup.

    Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s