The Fall of Eastern Aleppo: Why We May See Washington’s ‘Plan B’ in

As Islamist forces led by the al-Nusra front tried unsuccessfully to break the siege of eastern Aleppo in Syria, the future of the country’s largest city, and the war-torn country more broadly, seems predetermined, Alexander Mercouris, editor-in-chief of The Duran, told.

Washington’s “plan B” in Syria is now starting to emerge, Mercouris told Loud & Clear host Brian Becker, commenting on the failed counter-offensive by rebel groups in Aleppo.

“The US is expecting eastern Aleppo to be liberated within few next weeks,” he said, referring to reports from the National Security Council Meeting held earlier this month.

Despite this summer’s negotiations between Moscow and Washington, the corridor for opposition groups to retreat from eastern Aleppo with their light weapons on hasn’t been established. That means that the US-backed rebels won’t give up efforts to win over Aleppo, the country’s major industrial center and most populous urban area.

“For all the Jihadist groups [Aleppo is] a symbol of war in Syria,” Mercouris asserted. “If they have a presence there, they are a serious contender for political power in Syria. If they are thrown out of Aleppo, that ambition dies.”

Still, the defeat of rebels in Aleppo is only a question of time, he explained: “They are encircled by all sides now by the Syrian Army; more forces from Southern Syria and government-controlled areas will be concentrated there. They are cut off from supplies so they cannot replenish or reinforce. But I don’t think they will go quietly.”

Citing National Security Council Meeting reports, Mercouris suggested that the US is now seeking to develop a safe zone in north-eastern Syria controlled by Jihadi rebels that Washington could use as a “bargaining chip in future talks of political future Syria.”

“In essence, what they actually mean is partitioning of Syria into a rebel-controlled Northern and North East areas and a government-controlled Western area,” that includes large cities like Aleppo and Damascus.

In this scenario, Mercouris continued, Raqqa, which is now held by Daesh, would become a center for another constellation of Jihadi groups.

“What the US doesn’t want is Raqqa to fall to the Syrian military,” which is why Washington indicated it does not want Moscow or Damascus involved in the liberation of Raqqa.

However, to bring that plan to fruition, the US needs its protégés to destroy Daesh, and that’s another challenge for the Pentagon. Washington’s initial plan suggested that the YPG, a Kurdish militia, would liberate Raqqa, helping to establish the US protectorate there. But this met with a fierce opposition from Turkey, which has long opposed Kurdish forces, and which sent troops to both Syria and Iraq.

“If the US and Turkey will be working together in North-East Syria, it might be a way of smoothing relations” between Washington and Ankara, following Turkey’s failed coup attempt on July 15. “The problem with doing it, however, is that it sets Turkey, and by extension the US, against the Kurds in Syria.”

“If the US cannot carry out attacks on Syria trying to achieve its objective in very indirect ways, they are ultimately so counterproductive that it’s better for the US to stop doing them,” Mercouris said.

One Week After US Patrol, Beijing to Conduct Military Drills in South China Sea

Following the US Navy’s latest provocative patrol near land reclamation projects in the South China Sea, China has ordered nonmilitary to avoid the region as it prepares to launch new military drills.

Last week, the US Navy conducted its latest “freedom of navigation” exercise near Beijing’s artificial islands in the Paracel chain. The Chinese defense ministry called the move both”illegal” and “provocative.”

In response, a statement released by the country’s Maritime Safety Administration indicates that Beijing will conduct military drills near the Paracels throughout the day on Thursday, according to the Japan Times.

The US and its Pacific allies have objected to the construction of the islands, claiming it’s an attempt by Beijing to establish an air defense zone. China has denied these allegations and maintains that it has the right to build within its own territory and that the islands will use primarily for humanitarian purposes.

The South China Sea is a highly-contested region through which roughly $5 trillion in international trade passes annually. Most of it is claimed by China, but there are overlapping claims by Brunei, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

Last week’s maneuver by the USS Decatur was the fourth of its kind within the last year, as part of the Pentagon’s effort to challenge China’s “excessive maritime claims.” It also came amid recent statements from Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte that Manila would move away from its US obligations as part of an effort to increase ties with China and Russia.

“I announce my separation from the United States. Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also,” Duterte said.

“I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to [President Vladimir] Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world – China, Philippines, and Russia.”

New provocations are likely a sign of the US losing its influence in the Pacific.

“Washington has suffered geopolitical setbacks in virtually every nation in Asia Pacific, including those now led by regimes it has meticulously organized, funded, and backed for decades. It is also waning, however, among those nations considered long-time and crucial US allies,” geopolitical researcher Tony Cartalucci wrote in an article for New Eastern Outlook, pointing out that Thailand is also drawing away from the US.

“What used to be a military dominated by American hardware and military exercises, is transforming with the acquisition of Chinese tanks, European warplanes, Middle Eastern assault rifles, Russian helicopters, and Thai-made armored vehicles.”

What’s In a Name? ‘Non-Combat’ US Troops ‘In Harm’s Way’ in Mosul Fight

Despite pledges that the more than 6,000 US troops currently in Iraq are non-combat only and presumably safe, American forward air controllers and other special advisors helping Iraqi forces in the battle to retake Mosul are most certainly at risk.

US special operations forces known as Joint Terminal Air Controllers or JTACs are helping provide precision targeting for airstrikes on the outskirts of the city. While the forces themselves are classified as non-combat, the distinction will count for little to the individual soldiers performing their missions around the shifting frontline of battle.

Speaking to the Guardian, former US Navy pilot Christopher Harmer said the presence of JTACs means the US was willing to “incur casualties” in the fight for Mosul.

“There are Americans in harm’s way as part of this fight,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said in an October 17 meeting. “There’re Americans in harm’s way in other parts of Iraq as well.”

American troops in Iraq have been described as providing logistical support, advising other armies and providing tactical air support, but never “on the front lines.” It is typical for forward air controllers to be positioned at, or even ahead, of the front lines; however, Cook said in this case, Iraqi forces on the front lines would identify targets and send that information back to American JTACs some distance behind the front line of battle.

There are protocols in place to try to reduce the risk Americans supporting the Mosul operation will face, Cook noted, but though American advisers remain behind the forward line of troops, they are providing support “in obviously a combat environment” and in the battle space itself.

“I think it’s fair to say that there are Americans on the outskirts of the city,” he said.

UPI reports that there may be 100 to 200 JTACs taking part in the larger battle, with more advisers among them, close to the conflict.

Daesh has fired weapons at the Qayyarah air base where many US troops are housed, an attack that was at first feared to be a chemical weapon. Later analysis showed that it was not, according to Pentagon officials. It is widely feared that Daesh will resort to chemical attacks in defense of its headquarters in Iraq.

Since withdrawing American troops from Iraq in 2014, the White House has insisted that there will be “no boots on the ground” and that American forces are engaged only in advising and training their Iraqi counterparts. The Pentagon, on the other hand, will sometimes acknowledge that its troops, however they are classified in Washington DC, are in combat.

‘Houthi Missiles’ or Radar Glitch? What Sparked US Warship Attack on Yemen?

Last week, the Pentagon began a new military campaign in Yemen, ostensibly in retaliation for attempted attacks on the USS Mason in the Red Sea. But new reports suggest that the American naval vessel may have suffered from a radar malfunction.

Last Thursday, the United States launched strikes on three radar sites in Yemen, “officially” entering the conflict in the Middle Eastern nation. According to Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook, the action was necessary in light of recent missile attacks on US ships operating in international waters.

None of these alleged attacks struck their targets.

But Navy officials have now expressed doubt that American vessels were ever in danger, suggesting that reports of incoming missiles may have been the result of faulty radar systems.

“We are aware of the reports and we are assessing the situation,” one US defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, according to The Week.

“All of our ships and crews are safe and unharmed.”

 Writing for AntiWar.com, Jason Ditz points out that this “raises the possibility that the US warships are not only retaliating against the wrong people, but that there was nothing to retaliate against in the first place.

“Though there was some speculation that remnants of the Yemeni military were involved in firing missiles, by way of explaining why the Houthis were denying it, this must inevitably raise questions if anything happened at all other than the heavy-handed US reaction.”

Speaking to Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear last week, anti-war activist David Swanson spoke about how the United States often uses “self-defense” as justification for invading foreign countries.

“With these harmless good intentions, the US had ships off the coast of Yemen, and someone [shot but missed] these ships, and they retaliated in a proper, proportionate, and thereby somehow supposedly legal, active self-defense,” he told Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker.

“This seems to be a new pattern in the US media speech, that the US is able now to defend itself no matter where it is or who it has invaded or what right it has to be there.”

The United States has been indirectly involved in the Yemen conflict from the start, providing weapons and intelligence to the Saudi government.

“Even though what has happened in the last couple of days is certainly an escalation [of the Yemeni conflict], the United States was involved in this conflict for many months,” Kristine Beckerle, a member of Human Rights Watch’s North Africa Division, told Sputnik.

“It’s an escalation, but it’s not a fundamental change in the standoff, which has already claimed the lives of more than 4,000 civilians.”

Russia’s ‘Purely Defensive’ S-300 to ‘Psychologically Reduce Risks’ in Syria

Russia has deployed one of the most advanced anti-ballistic missile systems in its arsenal, the S-300VM “Antey-2500,” to Syria to improve security of the Russian Aerospace Forces, but the “purely defensive” complex will also help make the situation in the war-torn Arab country more calm, journalist Evgeny Krutikov wrote for Vzglyad.

This added bonus is due to the psychological effect of a cutting-edge weapon present in the region.

“High-tech and purely defensive anti-ballistic missile systems contribute to decreased activity and psychologically reduce risks,” Krutikov asserted. “The S-300VM’s sheer presence in Tartus psychologically limits capabilities of the US Air Force.”

The journalist maintained that the Pentagon is “pathologically afraid” of any losses, particularly high tech losses. If there is even a minimal risk of losing a warplane, the US military will most likely chose not to send it on a mission.

“Although Americans understand that Russian missile defense and anti-aircraft systems are not targeted against Western aviation, they will limit their aerial activities just in case. Perhaps, this could also include unmanned aerial vehicles stationed at the Incirlik base in Turkey,” he explained.

Krutikov emphasized that the deployment of the S-300VM to Tartus was a “measured and justified step” for Russia. “In the end, security of the Russian military bases is a top priority” for Moscow, he said. “If it also makes the US Air Force less active in the region, it will be an extra bonus.”

The journalist also noted that there indeed was a risk that an arms race in the region could ensue, but stated that this situation was not created by Moscow.

In service since 2013, the S-300V4 (NATO designation SA-23 Gladiator) is meant to track and intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missile, aeroballistic and cruise missiles, as well as fixed-wing aircraft, ECM (electronic countermeasure) platforms and precision-guided munitions.

An unnamed source in Russian military and diplomatic circles told Izvestiya that the S-300V4, an upgraded version of the S-300VM, is primarily geared up for destroying aeroballistic targets and cruise missiles.

The system is reported to have a range of 400 kilometers (nearly 250 miles) and can simultaneously engage up to 24 aircraft or 16 ballistic targets in various combinations. It has been designed and is manufactured by Almaz-Antey, a Russian state-owned defense company.

Pentagon Has No Money to Build Next-Gen Tank Rivaling Russian Armata

The US Department of Defense has struggled to readjust to major budget cuts on military spending imposed in recent years, which among other things has apparently led to the US Army lacking the funds to develop and produce next-generation armored vehicles to the M1A2 Abrams and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV).

“I’d love to have replacement programs today for the Abrams and Bradley and lay in plans to go do that,” Major General David Bassett, the US Army’s program executive officer for ground combat systems, told reporters at the Association of the US Army (AUSA) annual conference. “But it doesn’t fit in this portfolio in this budget environment.”

Developed in the 1970s, the M1 Abrams third-generation main battle tank has been in services with the US military since 1980. The current version of the Abrams, the M1A2, was rolled out in 1992. The Pentagon is currently working on the M1A3 upgrade that will include a lighter 120 mm gun, more durable track, lighter armor, long-range precision armaments, etc.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) has also been in service for decades, since 1981. The US Army planned to replace the platform as part of the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles program, which was launched in 1999 and canceled a decade later. In 2010, the US Army launched the Ground Combat Vehicle program, which was also meant to replace the Bradley, but pulled the plug on the initiative three years later.

“Instead, the Army is incrementally improving its venerable armored combat vehicles to keep them relevant against a rapidly modernizing threat – the Russian Armata family of combat vehicles for example,” defense analyst Dave Majumdar explained.

Bassett confirmed that there was “room for growth” for both platforms, but admitted that there is a limit on how many more improvements could be made to the existing vehicles.

“Even incremental development and improvement will mean that both the M1A2 SEPv.3 and the Bradley will remain potent machines,” Majumdar wrote for the National Interest. “Whether the Army’s incremental approach will be sufficient to keep pace with Russian and Chinese developments is yet to be seen – but in the current budgetary environment, it’s the best the Army can do.”

In late 2015, the Pentagon made it clear that the agency would have to slow down modernization programs and cut research and development budget to meet requirements set in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.

Did the Pentagon Chief Just Reignite South China Sea Tensions?

Despite hopes that South China Sea tensions were easing, provocative comments from US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter risk setting fire to the diplomatic tinderbox.

After months of escalation in the South China Sea, this week showed signs that tensions between Washington and Beijing were, at last, abating. On Thursday, two US warships were granted permission to dock in Hong Kong, mere months after the USS John C. Stennis was forbidden from doing so.

That goodwill has been quickly squandered.

“[The US] remains the region’s strongest military and security partner of choice,” Defense Secretary Carter said while onboard the USS Carl Vinson in San Diego, California, according to International Business Times.

He added that the Pentagon plans to “sharpen our military” edge in the Asia-Pacific, claiming it is “the most consequential region for America’s future.”

The US and its Pacific allies have objected to Beijing’s construction of a series of artificial islands in the South China Sea, concerned that they are being used to establish an air defense zone. China maintains it has every right to build within its own territory and that the islands will be used primarily for civilian purposes.

The US Navy has conducted a number of provocative “freedom of navigation” patrols within the 12-mile territorial limit of these islands, despite China’s repeated calls for calm.

In April, the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis had a port call permit request rejected, with Chinese officials stressing that such requests are granted on a case-by-case basis. The fact that two amphibious assault ships, the USS Bonhomme Richard and the USS Green Bay, were granted the same request only five months later was seen by some as a thaw in relations.

 The Pentagon will likely perform increased military patrols with Japan, which recently voiced its support for US operations in the region.

“Japan, for its part, will increase its engagement in the South China Sea, for example, Maritime Self-Defense Force joint training cruises with the US Navy and bilateral and multilateral exercises with regional navies,” Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada said earlier this month.

A highly-contested region through which roughly $5 trillion in international trade passes annually, most of the South China Sea is claimed by China, though there are overlapping claims by Brunei, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

Neither the United States nor Japan have any claims in the South China Sea.

Defense Secretary Carter, Gen Dunford Lash Out at Obama Over Iran Ransom Payment

Defense Secretary Ash Carter joined by leading defense officials say that they were not consulted before President Obama made the decision that they feel has sullied the name of the armed forces and emboldened Iranian forces.

The Obama administration faces yet another fracture in the tenuous alliance among political, diplomatic and military staffers as the fallout of President Obama’s controversial decision to send $400 million in cash to Iran amid the Iranian nuclear negotiations in order to free US naval personnel held hostage after drifting into Iranian waters continues to develop.

According to US Defense Secretary Ash Carter neither President Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry consulted either he nor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford before making the ill-fated decision that has top US military officials up in arms.

In response to a question from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) regarding the decision to proffer $400 million in cash to Iran as a condition for the release of hostages, Carter made clear that he was not invited to the decision making process.

“We weren’t involved in this,” Carter said. “I don’t know all the details of it, and the chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was taken by the law-enforcement and diplomatic [agencies], and I would refer you there.”

General Joseph Dunford reiterated this reality in his testimony before the Senate committee saying, “I am not trying to be evasive, but I don’t know the details of that arrangement and it really was a political decision that was made to provide that money, and I don’t think it’s appropriate that I comment on that.”

The statements made by top Pentagon officials directly contradicts the earlier Obama administration position laid out by State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner who said, “There’s always an inter-agency discussion around any decision like this, and every relevant agency weighs in.”

© Flickr/ Huge Scandal: Obama Used Pseudonym in Secret Memos on Hillary’s Private Server Statements by the Pentagon officials before Congress in contradiction to the official line show a chasm opening once again between the defense and diplomatic establishment within the administration.

The US President’s decision to fully exclude the military branches from the discussion along with recent revelations by Politico that the White House had been wiring cash to Iranian banks before the cash delivery have set the stage for division among the administration’s ranks likely to last through the final months of Obama’s term.

US ‘Betrayal’ in Syria Lead Moscow and Damascus to Develop New Strategy

Hawks in the US foreign policy establishment appear to have succeeded in their effort to rip the Russian-US Syrian ceasefire agreement to shreds. However, according to independent political observer Albert Naryshkin, the ‘war party’ should remember the proverb ‘be careful what you wish for…’, because Moscow and Damascus aren’t backing down.

Last Saturday, just over a week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry succeeded in hammering out a comprehensive Syrian ceasefire agreement, US-led coalition jets struck Deir ez-Zor, a government-controlled city in eastern Syria which has been besieged by Daesh terrorists for nearly two years. The attack left over 60 Syrian servicemen dead, and wounded over 100 more.

More than anything, Syrian and Russian officials were incensed by the fact that immediately after the airstrikes took place, Daesh began an offensive. Lavrov made sure to highlight this amazing ‘coincidence’ in his speech before the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

“And here an amazing thing happened,” Naryshkin noted, in his analysis for PolitRussia. “The US, which never apologizes for anything or to anyone, suddenly expressed regret, and apologized for the death of Syrian troops.”

Soon afterward, US media began buzzing that the Pentagon was “furious over the fact that someone was apologizing and officially calling its actions mistaken or regrettable.” But at that moment, the journalist added, the situation evolved further, widening the rift between Washington on one side and Moscow and Damascus on the other.

“On the one hand,” Naryshkin recalled, “after the meeting between Lavrov and Kerry at the UN General Assembly, we didn’t hear anything to the effect the truce agreement was ruined, or that the US would abandon its commitments. However, other events allow us to characterize the current status of the treaty as nothing more than a ‘phantom’.”

This comes down to three facts, according to the journalist. First and foremost, it stems from the brazen attack on Deir ez-Zor, which was not only a violation of the truce, but proof that there are at least elements in the US political establishment who are “ready to revive the idea of direct military operations against Assad’s forces.”

Secondly, there is fact that some militants, including Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra) never had any intention of halting the fighting. Finally, Naryshkin noted, there was the Syrian Army’s decision to withdraw from the ceasefire, which its high command justified by pointing out that militants had violated the truce over 300 times in a single week. The Russian General Staff soon declared it support for the decision, stating Monday that it made no sense for the Syrian Army to observe the ceasefire if militants were not willing to reciprocate.

In other words, “the Pentagon seems to have achieved its goal, and dealt serious damage to the agreement reached at Geneva. Even if it has not been formally announced, the agreement has already been violated and is not being adhered to, and its future looks tenuous. But this was the Pentagon’s step – how will Moscow and Damascus respond?”

The answer, Naryshkin noted, is quite simple: the two countries aren’t going to give up to US military pressure.

“Damascus began its response with a show of force. The Syrian Army and allied militias launched a massive offensive in northern Hama province, where militants [from the Jund al-Aqsa, a subunit of al-Nusra] are holding on to a small enclave. Knocking them out of the suburbs of Homs, the Syrian Army would be able to ensure safety in three major urban settlements: Damascus, Homs and Hama.”

“Fighting is now taking place near the village of Koukab, with advance units moving toward Taibat al-Imam…Before that, the Syrian Army returned to the positions from which it had previously withdrawn to respond to attacks by the terrorist forces that had refused to comply with the truce.”

Moscow, for its part, “decided to raise the stakes, and to send the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier cruiser to the Mediterranean Sea. The ship will join the group of Russian ships in the eastern Mediterranean.”

 “Currently, the Russian naval group in the eastern Mediterranean comprises six warships and three to four support vessels from all of Russia’s fleets. In order to strengthen the combat capabilities of the group, we plan to include a naval aircraft carrier group with the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser in its composition,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu explained.

Aircraft aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov will carry out strikes against the jihadists between October and January.

In effect, Naryshkin noted, the Syrian and Russian military response to the Pentagon’s provocation means failure for the hawks’ attempt to squeeze Moscow and Damascus into submission.

But at the same time, the journalist emphasized that waiting for an even ‘tougher’ response, absent another provocation from Washington, is not worth it, either. “Moscow will continue calmly supporting Syrian troops as they finish squeezing [militants in] Aleppo, and cleaning out the suburbs of Hama and Homs,” but will not escalate.

“In this way, Russia demonstrates that it will not reject peace initiatives — nor will it close the door for the implementation of the signed agreements, which can always be returned to; at the same time, Moscow shows that every provocation will be met with a serious operation inside Syria itself. And this will very quickly deplete the Pentagon’s ‘arsenal’, since it will force it to make a choice about whether to engage directly in an open military confrontation with Assad and Russia – something they vowed not to do, and wouldn’t be allowed to do.”

This is especially true given the fact that President Obama’s term is almost up, and lame duck presidents generally can’t afford to risk launching major new military operations.

Ultimately, Naryshkin suggested that even if individuals like Secretary of State Kerry could be counted on for having the good sense to stick to agreements signed with Moscow, Russia cannot sit back and hope that the president and the Pentagon will have the same wisdom. Moscow requires a ‘new strategy’ in Syria – one which it has been implementing in recent days.

According to the journalist, that strategy consists of always leaving the door open to peace negotiations, while demonstrating the will “to clear the terrorists out of Syria entirely…Washington only made concessions and agreed to talks because the opposition was beginning to run out of steam. And if the US does not want to or cannot participate in a peaceful solution, the conflict will continue to be resolved as it has over the past year, when consistently, one after another, hundreds of settlements and militia groups signed on to our proposal for a truce, while the government liberated large areas of territory, and surrounded Aleppo in a ring.”

‘Moderate’ Rebels Force US Commandos to Run From Syrian Town

While the United States has consistently backed what Washington refers to as “moderate” rebels in the Syrian conflict, video released Friday appears to show those same moderate fighters turning on American Special Forces.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that dozens of US Special Operations Forces had been deployed to Syria to fight alongside the Turkish military and so-called moderate Syrian rebels.

“At the request of the government of Turkey, US special operations forces are accompanying Turkish and vetted Syrian opposition forces as they continue to clear territory from ISIL [Daesh] in and around the area of the Syrian border near Jarabulus and Ar Rai,” Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis told reporters.

These joint ops appear to be off to a rocky start.

Footage appears to show US commandos being chased from the town of Ar Rai by fighters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

“Christians and Americans have no place among us,” one fighter shouts. “They want to wage war to occupy Syria.”

“The collaborators of America are dogs and pigs,” shouts another. “They wage a crusader war against Syria and Islam.”

According to Charles Lister, a senior fellow with the Middle East Institute, the incident revolved around the FSA’s fears that the US was now supporting the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

“Heated tempers and YPG relations aside, this was a big mistake by FSA. But it does go to show the diplomacy now required to make it work,” Lister told the Telegraph.

On September 9, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry announced a new peace plan to address the five-year civil war in Syria, calling for a ceasefire to begin on Monday. If the ceasefire holds, Washington and Moscow will work toward establishing a Joint Implementation Center.

On Friday, the US began sharing data with Russia on the location of the moderate opposition groups.

“Russian officers have contacted representatives of Pentagon and the US special services in Geneva. We are examining the data related to the areas of operation of US-controlled armed groups, which we’ve received today,” Alexander Zorin, special representative of the Russian Defense Ministry, told reporters.

“But a preliminary analysis revealed that the distinctions between the group and terrorists hadn’t been made.”