Reporting Syria propaganda style

Syria hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean, in the port of Tartus, and Syria buys Russian weapons, though on a modest scale when compared with the gigantic US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. As important, Russian leaders are still smarting after being hoodwinked by the U.N. resolution on Libya. Furthermore, Russia is currently the target of an extraordinary propaganda campaign demonizing Vladimir Putin as he enters the presidential elections. Such outside interference will steel Putin to exploit every opportunity to demonstrate masterful leadership and defend his country’s interests against Western pressure.

Israel and the Complex Regional Strategic Equations

To oversimplify a very complex situation: the destruction of the Baathist government would be a strategic victory of great value to the US and Israel. The central pillar in the strategic relationship between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will have been destroyed, leaving Hezbollah and Iran more exposed to a military attack by the U.S. and Israel. And this “shift in the balance of power” envisioned by U.S. strategists will reduce Russia`s influence in the region, and sooner rather than later, that of China- hence the proxy status of Syria.

US v Russia

Relations have deteriorated. The American-Russia talks on the ABM are deadlocked, as Washington rejects Moscow's plea for a legally binding guarantee that the US's ABM deployments in Europe will not impact Russia's strategic deterrent. As Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's deputy prime minister, protested in Moscow recently: the US and its NATO allies at present have 1,000 missiles capable of intercepting Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles, covering all European Russia up to the Ural Mountains. Further: “There are no guarantees that after the first, second, and third phases [of the US' ABM project] are completed, there will be no fourth, fifth and sixth...Were the United States able to effectively shield itself from a potential Russian response to a U.S. nuclear First Strike, the U.S. would be able simply to dictate to the entire world on its terms, not only to Russia.” This scenario, in military terms, would be “Nuclear Primacy”, long sought by U.S strategists.

Also central to the conflict is control of Central Asia’s vast oil and gas reserves, which has intermittently raged as an undeclared war. Buoyed by access to these resources, Moscow has reacted strenuously to military encirclement and incorporation of former Soviet states into NATO.

Russia and China

As a major customer of Iranian oil, China does not approve of Western sanctions against Tehran, and, internationally, it is irked  further by US attempts to contain its influence in the Asia-Pacific regionwith the latter's declaration of its "strategic turn to Asia”.The Beijing newspaper, The Global Times also pointed out recently that the US's belligerent projection of military might increasingly leaves Beijing and Moscow with no choice but to react: “So far Moscow and Beijing are relatively restrained, though NATO seeks to expand its strategic presence in East Europe and U.S. strengthening its military alliances in Asia. But the two cannot fall back forever…in both countries, an increasing number of people now advocate a Moscow-Beijing 'alliance'…If they are really determined to join hands, the balance of power on many world issues will begin to shift.”

The Russian and Chinese double veto on the U.N. Syrian resolution represents a co-ordinated move to challenge the US on its triumphalist march from Libya toward Syria and Iran, with Syria seen as critical in the West's agenda to retain the Middle East as their sphere of influence.

Global Strategic Imperatives

In order to maintain its political and economic hegemony across the world, it is necessary for American government to contain potential military, economic, or political rivals that might threaten U.S. dominance in any of these fields. As a necessary consequence, the U.S. must seek access to the vast oil and mineral wealth of the Middle East and Central Asia, whatever the cost of wars and regime changes.

Still relevant today is the 2002 Bush administration publication “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” And in making the claim to global hegemony, the document points out that “The United States possesses unprecedented - and unequaled - strength and influence in the world.” In fact, as of 2010,US military spending was about 43 per cent of the world total. Historically, defense-related spending in the United States is at its highest inflation-adjusted level since World War II, and  at 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed in 150 countries, andthe U.S. has an unrivalled capacity to project its military power world wide.

The Outcome?

Mounting casualties with escalating hatred is reducing the chance of a negotiated settlement in Syria. Today, in mid February, full scale civil war seems inevitable. The crisis is both internal and international, complicated by thedifferent long-term geopolitical agendasof the major parties. While the Libyan strategy of capturing territory and then securing “no-fly-zones” is unlikely to succeed, “humanitarian intervention” is on the cards. Meanwhile, as the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned, while Russia “will do its best to avert a heavy-handed interference in Syria…Russia cannot prevent a military intervention in Syrian affairs if this decision is made by some country.”