Since Putin started bombing ISIS in Syria last year (Sept,30), 35 thousands of terrorists have been killed (27 hundreds of Russian and post-Soviet states citizens among them), over 12 thousand square kilometers of Syrian territory has been deliberated from terrorists (over 700 towns and villages). I wonder if Western Media has reported about that?
And Washington pretends "to stop the fire" by pouring more and more gasoline into it!
Here is what Russian bombing in Syria looked like in those opening days compared to American strikes:
Notice something? THEY WERE MOSTLY BOMBING NON-ISIS AREAS. Because ISIS is obviously not their priority - propping up Assad's regime is.
1. The Russian expeditionary force has been vastly more harmful to Islamic State forces than the US coalition. The US coalition is sort of on again, off again in its effectiveness, Virginia Senator Richard Black told RT.
RT: Are you surprised that no consensus has been reached between Moscow and Washington?
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District: I know there was a lot of hope initially that the agreement would be successful. I know that the Syrians were excited about it; I know that the Russians were also. But very shortly after the agreement went into effect the US launched a very intense bombing attack against the Syrian Army at Deir ez-Zor. This is an area where the lines were very static, they had not moved very quickly and planes launched an hour-long attack against the Syrian Army. And as John Kerry recently said:
“The US jets conduct their strikes with exceptional precision, no other country can match.”
'Russia is the only truly effective fighting force in Syria' - Virginia Senator
2.
NY Times:
It reinforced the sense that Mr. Putin has managed to maintain the initiative in Syria against an American president who wants to keep the war at arm’s length.
Since September, when Russia thrust itself into the conflict Mr. Putin has consistently seemed a step ahead of United States on Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...ithdrawal-russia-stays-a-step-ahead.html?_r=0
3. I
ndependent:
The biggest military defeat that Isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra. And we are silent.
Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn't they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn't we?
Less than a week after the lost souls of the 'Islamic Caliphate' destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should - should we not? - have been
clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no.
Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin's Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and
we daren't utter a single word to say well done.
Why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn't they bomb the suicide convoys that broke through the Syrian army's front lines? Why didn't they attack Isis?
I could not help but smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the regime.
That really did tell you all you needed to know about the American "war on terror". They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that much.
Aren't we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That's Putin's job. And Assad's. Pray for peace, folks.
Robert Fisk: Why is David Cameron silent on the recapture of Palmyra?
4. At the meeting last week, Mr. Kerry was trying to explain that the
United States has no legal justification for attacking Mr. Assad’s government, whereas Russia was invited in by the government.
Mr. Kerry lamented
being outmaneuvered by the Russians, expressed disagreement with some of Mr. Obama’s policy decisions and said Congress would never agree to use force.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/100000004683024.app.html?_r=0
5.
Franco Frattini, former Italian Foreign Minister, currently President of the Italian Society for International Organization: " Both America and the Russian Federation say we want a political process. The problem and frankly speaking a mistake of the Western coalition is not highlighting the distinction between the so-called moderate rebels and not all the terrorist groups because there is an agreement on ISIS but Al-Nusra. There is a shadow position over the inclusion or not of Al-Nusra in the targets. Al-Nusra should be one of the targets."
For the last five and a half years, the US has been backing these opposition organizations in Syria. They have not been successful in toppling the government, but they have been successful in bringing about a lot of social distress and a lot of displacement. And this of course is spilling out beyond the boundaries and borders of Syria itself. But
they do not want peace in that country for the simple fact that it will not coincide with what their ultimate objectives are: They want to get rid of the government in Damascus
We see that they accuse Russia in Syria of accusing atrocities, but they say nothing about the organizations they are supporting openly and clandestinely on the ground, and who are creating the situation for all this displacement and disorder in Syria.
'US-led criminal enterprise in Syria threatens the world'