Putin Blasts Western ‘Democratization’ Saying it Causes Terrorism, Failed States

The Russian President leveled his most fierce blow yet against interventionist foreign policies arguing that productive societal change must begin at the ground level from within rather than being imparted by outside liberators.

President Putin opined in an interview with Bloomberg at the Eastern Economic Forum that events from the last decade and a half show that the budding Western foreign policy theory of humanitarian interventionism, wars of liberation and outside efforts to bolster opposition to autocratic conditions result in fertile breeding grounds for terrorists and destabilize nation-states – with Iraq, Libya and Syria being the most prominent and graphic examples.

“I’ve always been of the opinion that you can’t change things from the outside, regarding political regimes, power change,” Putin explained. “I’m sure – and the events of the past decade add to this certainty – in particular the attempts at democratization in Iraq, Libya, we see what they led to: the destruction of state systems and the rise of terrorism.”

The Russian President himself has faced challenges from Western foreign policy thinkers who claim to espouse a theory of outside intervention to facilitate a culture of increased democratization – such as Open Society Foundations’ George Soros who had invested heavily in opposition media and entities inside of Russia which many in Moscow see as a thinly veiled effort to destabilize the government.

A similar cascade befell the regime of Viktor Yanukovych, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, whose regime was ousted by the same “fifth column” forces of disruption that the leaks of George Soros files showed that the Hungarian-born billionaire advocated for and ultimately funded the creation of.

 “Do you see any elements of democracy in Libya? Perhaps they will develop one day, hopefully. Or the ongoing civil war in Iraq – what is the future of Iraq in General? These remain big questions,” said Putin in laying out his case. “The same goes for Syria. Every time we hear that ‘Assad must go’ (because someone from outside believes so), I can’t help but wonder: What is that going to lead to?… Isn’t it better to warm ourselves with patience and promote structural changes in society?”

The idea comes full-force with the regime change efforts in Iraq and Libya with former President George W. Bush calling the military campaign an effort to “liberate the Iraqi people” from the despotism of the violent dictator Saddam Hussein. A similar motive animated the Obama administration’s push, an effort spearheaded by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to force regime change in Libya so that pro-democratic forces could lead the country – instead it is a failed state controlled by Daesh (ISIS).

Speaking about democracy from the depths of despotism, Putin argued that “this won’t happen today or tomorrow, but perhaps therein lies the political wisdom: holding horses and not leaping ahead, but gradually pursuing structural changes, in this case, in the political system of society.”

The Russian President’s argument makes sense even under Western political theology which is based on the notion of the rule of law and freedom of speech with a major precondition of being trust in institutions that are left stable enough to adapt to the needs and demands of the people.

US Congress Exposes CENTCOM Propaganda Scheme: Cooking Intel on Syria Fight

A joint task force has determined that defense intelligence appraisals provided by US Central Command systematically provided a distorted “rosy” picture, in stark contrast to battlefield realities, in order to create the false appearance that the US strategy in Syria and Iraq was succeeding.

On Thursday, a congressional joint task force (JTF) investigating allegations of intelligence manipulation at US Central Command (CENTCOM) issued a report highlighting systematic failures since 2015 with CENTCOM reporting and analysis of efforts to train Iraqi Security Forces and combat the Daesh extremist network in Iraq and Syria.

Notably, the report found that the intelligence products approved by senior CENTCOM leaders routinely provided a more rosy depiction of US anti-terrorism efforts than on-the-ground realities indicated, including appraisals that were consistently more positive than those produced by other agencies and departments within the US intelligence establishment.

The Joint Task Force, established by the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense,  determined that there were intentional efforts to manipulate and propagandize battlefield realities, possibly for the purpose of scoring political points in a heated election season. The committee was led by Congressmen Ken Calvert (R-CA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH).

The allegations laid out by the JTF are likely to be dismissed as a “partisan witch hunt” against the White House, but initial findings that electoral politics have resulted in the manipulation of America’s defense imperative is not an uncommon theme for US presidential administrations, and that of President Barack Obama is no exception.

Representative Pompeo, in a statement, took the Defense Department to task, observing that “the United States Central Command’s most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command’s intelligence products to downplay the threat from [Daesh] in Iraq,” and argued that the fraudulently “rosy” claims of operational success “may well have resulted in putting American troops at risk as policymakers relied on this intelligence when formulating policy and allocating resources for the fight.”

Alexander Mercouris, editor of The Duran and an expert on the Syrian civil war and the battle against Daesh, expressed his concern to Sputnik over the congressional findings.

“I think the point was to give the impression that the policy of supporting so-called moderate rebels in Iraq and Syria who were fighting [Daesh], was more successful than it actually was,” Mercouris said.

“The Obama Administration announced this great policy that it would take on Daesh and defeat Daesh by bombing the terrorist group and supporting ‘moderate’ groups in Syria and Iraq to fight Daesh, but without supporting the Syrian government which was actually fighting Daesh. The result of that policy was a complete failure.”

“Daesh actually increased its areas of control,” he added, “capturing Palmyra, and there were reports that they would have captured Damascus last autumn if the Russians had not intervened.”

Russia, Syria Lead Fight To Free Raqqa From Daesh, US-Backed Forces Retreat

The Obama administration pledged to play an integral role in liberating the city of Raqqa, but US-backed forces are moving in the wrong direction and are now nearly 80 miles from the Daesh stronghold.

The Syrian Army (SAA) continued to advance on Raqqa after seizing the Taqba dam on the Euphrates River only 25 miles (40km) from Raqqa this weekend. The surge represents the first time that Syrian forces have entered the Raqqa province since 2014, when Daesh first began its terror campaign.

The SAA’s assault on the Daesh stronghold has been supplemented by unrelenting Russian airstrikes in the eastern areas of Hama province, bordering Raqqa. The aligned forces are currently situated in the town of al Tabqah, recently cleared of Daesh and which served in 2014 as a aunchpad for Daesh attacks, givens its proximity to Raqqa.

At the same time, the US-backed and Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have reversed their position and refocused military strength toward recapturing the city of Manbij, in a bid to strengthen the opposition group’s position to destabilize Syria’s Assad regime.

The retreat by the US-backed SDF, which had previously been in competition with the Russian-backed SAA in a collective bid to recapture Raqqa from Daesh, presents a major strategic setback for the Obama administration, employing the dual goals of ousting Bashar al-Assad while also liberating territory from Daesh.

Financial Times reporter William Wallis wrote on Monday that by recapturing Raqqa ahead of American-backed forces, the Russian and Syrian armies would “poke the Americans in the eye in a place they have long talked of helping to recapture.”

What has been to date a productive competition could erupt into a conflict between the partners, with the two-sides sharing very different geopolitical views. Russia believes it is necessary to prop up the Assad regime, at least until Daesh has been vanquished. The United States believes it is necessary to support opposition forces and oust Assad. The US effort has often stumbled, with American weaponry consistently falling into the hands of al-Nusra terrorists aligned with violent rebel groups.

Others see the retreat by Kurdish-dominated forces as an acquiescence by American military strategists, suggesting that the US and Russia are coordinating efforts to liberate territory in Syria.

US Defense Department spokesperson Peter Cook rejected this explanation, saying “in terms of direct coordination of activities on the ground [between the US and Russia] that is not happening.”

The possibility remains that both the US-backed SDF and the Russian-backed SAA could meet in Raqqa, potentially escalating tensions between Moscow and Washington. The strategic repositioning of American troops, however, has minimized that possibility albeit at considerable expense to the Obama administration.

With both sides planning to soon descend on Raqqa and bring an end to a civil war that has killed 500,000 Syrians, Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down with Zafar Bangash of Toronto’s Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought to discuss the situation.

https://www.spreaker.com/embed/player/standard?episode_id=8723483&autoplay=false

Are the US-Backed SDF and Russian-Backed SAA Forces Cooperating?

“I don’t think there is coordination between the two sides,” said Bangash. More so there appears to be a race towards Raqqa, although the Syrian Army seems to be better placed because they have already captured al Tabqah right next to a dam on the Euphrates River, and they are trying to take control of the airport there.”

“The Syrian Army is only 40km (25 miles) southwest of Raqqa whereas the Syrian Democratic Forces, dominated by the Kurds, have headed in the opposite direction, towards Manbij, which is 136 kilometers (85 miles) away from Raqqa, so the Kurds are much further away right now.”

Bangash explained that Kurdish forces are focused on playing the long game by consolidating their own territories with a view toward having a stronger hand in future negotiations, but potentially at the expense of the United States losing the race to be the first to seize Raqqa.

What is the relationship between the US military and the Kurdish-dominated forces?

“The United States is backing the Kurds fully,” said the commentator. “There are US special forces working with them and American forces wearing Kurdish uniforms have been viewed guiding them in operations, which has been problematic for relations with Turkey who has adamantly protested this.”

Bangash explained that the United States’ willingness to support Kurdish fighters even over the protests of Turkey indicate that the Obama administration is “keen on preventing the Syrian Army from taking control of their own country” by strengthening alternate forces to ultimately weaken Assad’s control over the Syrian government.