Wednesday, 24 July 2013

Cameron Admits Weapons Could be in 'Bad Guys' Hands in Syria

Britain's Prime Minister seems to be having a change of heart regarding weapons supplies to the Syrian opposition. In a BBC interview, David Cameron says he's still committed to helping rebel groups fighting government forces, but that these groups include, in his words, 'a lot of bad guys.' Deepak Tripathi, a political analyst and historian from University of Roehampton in London, talks to RT

Unlike the guest, I think that the Western powers are backing down from openly arming the Syria rebels because they realise the game has been exposed. They will still arm them covertly, as they have done from the very start, but it's obvious the main fighting forces are extremist mercenaries which is not justifiable in public debate.

I'd also like to know what sort of criminal charges one could bring against the leaders of Western countries for funding and fuelling this war.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 24th, 2013.]


steven andresen said...


I saw on one of these you tube debates on RT someone argue that the Russians have backed off on their support of Assad and that because of this the Assad government will likely fall.

Is there any evidence that you know of that would support this claim about the Russians?

It's my understanding that some cache of Russian arms given to Syria was recently blown up by the Israelis. Then, after this, the Russians went through this high alert drill of hundreds of thousands of troops.

I also thought the Russian Mediterranean fleet was stationed in Syria, but was moved to Cyprus(?)...some island south of Greece.

Can you explain all this?


SpookyOne said...


There is definitely a problem gauging what is really going on with the Russians because we don't know what is happening behind closed doors.

We get a lot of clues about what the West is doing behind closed doors in Syria because we can see their hands in the arming of the extremists, their open support for them etc. With Russia we have to guess a lot more.

Admittedly it does not appear the Russians are heavily involved other than playing the role of the neutral LAW ABIDING state in the international sphere. Their course of action seems to be undermining the political goals and propaganda of the West without fighting.

If they can win the propaganda war against the US and its allies then Assad will have a great chance to win on the ground especially if they can also foil materiel support for the covert war.

The Russians might be following an aim in the famous 'sword fighting' book by Miyamoto Musashi - to win without fighting.

The Russians have not been caught overtly supplying arms but they are honouring hardware contracts signed before the war.

The reason they don't get directly involved may be because of the same reasons that discourages the West - casualties. The War in Chechnya would remind Russian citizens that they would want to avoid a direct battle unless absolutely necessary.

And note, even with intervention from Russia the conflict situation for Assad seems to be one of a drawn out fight - something not good for the Russian public.

Russia has probably assessed the war a proxy battle - so they'll also operate with proxies as much as they can. Their goal is to stop Western air strikes like what was seen in Libya - western overt intervention from the sky.

There are also other aspects of the fight to consider. Assad is not isolated as has been portrayed in the West. He does have internal support but also support (covert and overt) from Iraq, Iran and significantly from Hezbollah.

So the game is a bit more complex that it seems. Behind the scenes the Russians may have told Assad they will appear neutral while holding to account the West in the public eye.

The Russians may have judged early on, that the extremists imported into Syria would, like foreign troops going on a rampage, draw criticism and revulsion on the world stage. They Russians are holding off the West's propaganda to let this truth come out via their own media along with Iran's media and some media in Europe.

So each highlighted move by the extremists, and the failed attempts to set up a false sarin gas attack, weaken the long term position of the West. And the truth will be getting out to the Islamists being recruited by the West for the war - that they are puppets of Israeli and western interests.

So, from a long term point of view, provided Assad can hold out and maintain internal support, is that his position is much stronger politically.

The Russian drills could be seen as muscule flexing in order to provide moral support for Assad and other countries being targeted by the West. It's likely a bluff or real warning to the US too, that they mean business. It looks like classic posturing to me. It does not mean there will be a large scale war, more like "read between the lines and expect us to do things (perhaps covertly too)".

The movement of the Russian fleet might also be a safety measure to protect it from some sort of Al-CIA-Duh attack. Dead Russian sailors would not look good at home. Ultimately I don't think Russia wants to fight, but they might stand their ground if 'forced' to do so.

Admittedly they're dancing on the edge - certianly they do not want to see Syria destroyed, but they are playing a more subtle game I believe (or rather hope!)

I don't think they have backed off their support of Assad but there may be a level of caution in their game.