Hillary Clinton Acts Like a Petty Thimble Rigger
The U.S. secretary of state said that Russia has allegedly approved Bashar al-Assad’s resignation and even promised to persuade him to do so.
Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, has acknowledged the possibility of his resignation for the first time. In his interview with the Turkish press he said that he is ready to make that decision. However, he also stated that he would do so only when he is convinced that his resignation would serve the good of the country. He is also ready to entrust his fate to the hands of the Syrian people, who can determine his future by themselves without any pressure or intervention from third parties, foremost the United States, which Assad called “allies of terrorists.” Assad focused attention separately on the fact that he would have easily cut a deal with Americans and kept ruling without caring about Syria’s interests if his main motive was greed.
The interview with the publication Cumhuriyet was the first sort of communication between Syria’s leader and a representative of the Turkish mass media after the incident with an F-4 fighter jet, which was hit in Syrian air space on June 22. Let’s recall that Ankara officially admits that the aircraft intruded in Syrian airspace; however, it was allegedly shot down over neutral waters. Assad expressed regret about the incident and promised not to let tension between Damascus and Ankara grow into open confrontation.
In this story there are still many uncertainties. According to the Turkish version, the fighter was supposedly testing the work of Turkish locators when it lost its course. It had only been in Syrian air space for five minutes. Some experts believe that it could have been NATO military testing Syria’s Air Defense System — how is it going to work in case the West finally chooses aggression? As it turned out, it works much better than those of the previous NATO targets: Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. Therefore, while its defense exists, Syria will not be an easy target. Perhaps that “test” will at least make the most hotheaded individuals, calling for Syrian conflict intervention from the outside, think about possible consequences.
Meanwhile, the story about the shot-down aircraft is being used in the West as one of the reasons to pressure Russia to give-up backing Assad. It is not accidental that a British tabloid, Sunday Times, wrote about “Russia’s finger on button,” the pressing of which destroyed the Turkish fighter jet. “Russian technicians were involved in the taking down of the Turkish fighter jet. We would not be surprised if these Russian experts, if they didn’t push the button, were at least beside the Syrian officers who did it.”
The publication quotes one of the Middle Eastern diplomats. According to one of the versions, the fighter jet was really shot down by the newest anti-aircraft missile system of the short range Pantsir-S1, supplied to Syria by Russia. The only thing left is to wait for a more respectable press to pick up the hullabaloo: “The Russians have the blood of Syrian rebels on their hands!” And it will surely happen, unless Moscow gives Assad up voluntarily.
Coming back to the interview of Assad to the Turkish publication, one must note that the Syrian president had a fairly positive reaction to the outcome of the Geneva meeting. “I was pleased by the words that the fate of Syria must be decided by Syrian people,” he said. Let’s remember, that to this day, the parties that participated in the meeting and worked on the final document interpret its content in many different ways. Thus, the Russian minister of foreign affairs said that there are absolutely no suggestions in the document that the forming of transitional government must proceed without Assad’s participation. He admitted that some of the participants of the meeting had attempted to include in the document a thesis on the necessity of excluding one of the parties from the peace process. However, Moscow blocked the attempt.
The West, however, sees something different. “So, it implicitly means that Assad must go. Bashar Al-Assad's term: it’s over” said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. The head of American diplomacy, Hillary Clinton, went even further. Not only had she said that the Geneva communiqué implies Assad’s resignation, but she had also added that Russia will contribute to his stepping down, which supposedly demonstrates that Assad staying in power is no longer her “strategic interest.” According to her, Moscow promised to try and persuade the Syrian leader to resign, but at the same time admitted that it might not have enough leverage to influence the process.
Certainly, anything can be expected from Russian authorities. But, it’s thought that those experts are correct who believe that the U.S. secretary of state talks about the desired as if it were reality. According to political scientist Evgeniy Satanovsky in his interview to “Vzglyad,” Hillary Clinton “in her habits reminds of a petty thimble rigger, but not a U.S. state secretary.” According to the expert, she has to say something, for she can’t admit that “she and the American policy … are nothing,” and that they don't have any opportunity to influence the development of events in Syria.
Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, has acknowledged the possibility of his resignation for the first time. In his interview with the Turkish press he said that he is ready to make that decision. However, he also stated that he would do so only when he is convinced that his resignation would serve the good of the country. He is also ready to entrust his fate to the hands of the Syrian people, who can determine his future by themselves without any pressure or intervention from third parties, foremost the United States, which Assad called “allies of terrorists.” Assad focused attention separately on the fact that he would have easily cut a deal with Americans and kept ruling without caring about Syria’s interests if his main motive was greed.
The interview with the publication Cumhuriyet was the first sort of communication between Syria’s leader and a representative of the Turkish mass media after the incident with an F-4 fighter jet, which was hit in Syrian air space on June 22. Let’s recall that Ankara officially admits that the aircraft intruded in Syrian airspace; however, it was allegedly shot down over neutral waters. Assad expressed regret about the incident and promised not to let tension between Damascus and Ankara grow into open confrontation.
In this story there are still many uncertainties. According to the Turkish version, the fighter was supposedly testing the work of Turkish locators when it lost its course. It had only been in Syrian air space for five minutes. Some experts believe that it could have been NATO military testing Syria’s Air Defense System — how is it going to work in case the West finally chooses aggression? As it turned out, it works much better than those of the previous NATO targets: Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. Therefore, while its defense exists, Syria will not be an easy target. Perhaps that “test” will at least make the most hotheaded individuals, calling for Syrian conflict intervention from the outside, think about possible consequences.
Meanwhile, the story about the shot-down aircraft is being used in the West as one of the reasons to pressure Russia to give-up backing Assad. It is not accidental that a British tabloid, Sunday Times, wrote about “Russia’s finger on button,” the pressing of which destroyed the Turkish fighter jet. “Russian technicians were involved in the taking down of the Turkish fighter jet. We would not be surprised if these Russian experts, if they didn’t push the button, were at least beside the Syrian officers who did it.”
The publication quotes one of the Middle Eastern diplomats. According to one of the versions, the fighter jet was really shot down by the newest anti-aircraft missile system of the short range Pantsir-S1, supplied to Syria by Russia. The only thing left is to wait for a more respectable press to pick up the hullabaloo: “The Russians have the blood of Syrian rebels on their hands!” And it will surely happen, unless Moscow gives Assad up voluntarily.
Coming back to the interview of Assad to the Turkish publication, one must note that the Syrian president had a fairly positive reaction to the outcome of the Geneva meeting. “I was pleased by the words that the fate of Syria must be decided by Syrian people,” he said. Let’s remember, that to this day, the parties that participated in the meeting and worked on the final document interpret its content in many different ways. Thus, the Russian minister of foreign affairs said that there are absolutely no suggestions in the document that the forming of transitional government must proceed without Assad’s participation. He admitted that some of the participants of the meeting had attempted to include in the document a thesis on the necessity of excluding one of the parties from the peace process. However, Moscow blocked the attempt.
The West, however, sees something different. “So, it implicitly means that Assad must go. Bashar Al-Assad's term: it’s over” said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. The head of American diplomacy, Hillary Clinton, went even further. Not only had she said that the Geneva communiqué implies Assad’s resignation, but she had also added that Russia will contribute to his stepping down, which supposedly demonstrates that Assad staying in power is no longer her “strategic interest.” According to her, Moscow promised to try and persuade the Syrian leader to resign, but at the same time admitted that it might not have enough leverage to influence the process.
Certainly, anything can be expected from Russian authorities. But, it’s thought that those experts are correct who believe that the U.S. secretary of state talks about the desired as if it were reality. According to political scientist Evgeniy Satanovsky in his interview to “Vzglyad,” Hillary Clinton “in her habits reminds of a petty thimble rigger, but not a U.S. state secretary.” According to the expert, she has to say something, for she can’t admit that “she and the American policy … are nothing,” and that they don't have any opportunity to influence the development of events in Syria.
Next article![]( "The Distribution of Power")
