Why Russian Aid to Syria Angers the US

Instead of coordinating their actions in the war against a common evil, the Americans are mastering the role of spiteful bit players, says our columnist.

On Capitol Hill, there is panicked discord. Information, leaked to the American press, indicates that the U.S. president's advisers are squabbling about how to react to Russia's conduct in Syria. It already amounts to a political morass: In the morning, we hear from Washington that Russia is the world’s main military threat, on a par with the Islamic State group (which, by the way, is banned in Russia); in the evening, the State Department "would like to see Moscow more involved in resolving the Syrian crisis."*

This kind of "logic" only makes sense when you're drunk.

Yet, as Russia sends the next tranche of military equipment to Damascus and develops training camps for Syrian specialists, there once again is a universal cry: "Russia is occupying Syria!" However, the "occupiers" bring not only weapons and military supplies for the Syrian army, but also food for starving refugees. Yes, there are many refugees within Syria, who fled from the brutality of the Islamic State group. This is why the Syrians are saying, "Obama dropped bombs on our heads, but Putin sent bread."

Syria remembers well that in recent years, the Americans, along with their NATO allies, were preparing to obliterate the country with missile strikes, frightening the world with warnings about Bashar Assad's chemical weapons. Then, Putin saved Damascus from bombardment by proposing the wholesale destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons under international controls. This gave Obama a painful thump on his forehead, as he was unable to use this pretext to remove Assad from power. The American venture failed, which further angered Washington.

When the barbaric hordes of the Islamic State group appeared on the scene, disorderly "surgical" strikes on their "suspected" areas of concentration did nothing to change the situation. Moreover, the cunning Islamic State group militants kept their units close to civilian populations, resulting in mass casualties of innocent people under the American bombing. The bombings became the impetus for an unprecedented wave of hundreds of thousands of Syrians fleeing from their homeland to Europe. This is what resulted from the American bombardments. Retired Gen. John Allen, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, recognized that, in all honesty, the effectiveness of U.S. military actions "approaches zero."* Airstrikes cannot stop the forward ground movement of the Islamic State group. But by supporting units of the so-called "moderate Syrian opposition" with money and weapons, the U.S. is playing into the hands of the Islamic State group; almost all of the weapons provided by the U.S. will end up, sooner or later, in the hands of terrorists.

While the White House and the Pentagon were scratching their heads, trying to decide what to do in this situation, Russia developed an aid plan for Syria: the Syrian army must be the main "instrument" in the war against the Islamic State group, and it must be well trained and well equipped. Currently, this is being done (in accordance with previously signed contracts between Moscow and Damascus). Only such an army can carry out effective operations to encircle and destroy the barbaric units of the Islamic State group.

What about the U.S.? Instead of coordinating its actions in the war against a common evil, the Americans are mastering the role of spiteful bit players, showing the world satellite photos with the locations of Russian special military units deployed in Syria. Already, these actions look an awful lot like betrayal. Jealous, perhaps? I wouldn't be surprised if we soon find out that the U.S. is pumping weapons and money, not only to the "moderate Syrian opposition," but to the Islamic State group as well. Just to annoy Assad and the Russians.

*Editor’s note: The original quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.