Stumbling to War With Russia?
Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian warplane was a provocative and portentous act.
That Sukhoi Su-24, which the Turks say intruded into their air space, crashed and burned – in Syria. One of the Russian pilots was executed while parachuting to safety. A Russian rescue helicopter was destroyed by rebels using a U.S. TOW missile. A Russian marine was killed.
"A stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists," said Vladimir Putin of the first downing of a Russian warplane by a NATO nation in half a century. Putin has a point, as the Russians are bombing rebels in northwest Syria, some of which are linked to al-Qaida.
As it is impossible to believe Turkish F-16 pilots would fire missiles at a Russian plane without authorization from President Tayyip Recep Erdogan, we must ask: Why did the Turkish autocrat do it?
Why is he risking a clash with Russia?
Answer: Erdogan is probably less outraged by intrusions into his air space than by Putin’s success in securing the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, whom Erdogan detests, and by relentless Russian air strikes on Turkmen rebels seeking to overthrow Assad.
Imperiled strategic goals and ethnicity may explain Erdogan. But what does the Turkish president see down at the end of this road?
And what about us? Was the U.S. government aware Turkey might attack Russian planes? Did we give Erdogan a green light to shoot them down?
These are not insignificant questions.
For Turkey is a NATO ally. And if Russia strikes back, there is a possibility Ankara will invoke Article V of NATO and demand that we come in on their side in any fight with Russia.
And Putin was not at all cowed. Twenty-four hours after that plane went down, his planes, ships and artillery were firing on those same Turkmen rebels and their jihadist allies.
Politically, the Turkish attack on the Sukhoi Su-24 has probably aborted plans to have Russia join France and the U.S. in targeting ISIS, a diplomatic reversal of the first order.
Indeed, it now seems clear that in Syria’s civil war, Turkey is on the rebel-jihadist side, with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah on the side of the Syrian regime.
But whose side are we on?
As for what strategy and solution President Obama offers, and how exactly he plans to achieve it, it remains an enigma.
Nor is this the end of the alarming news.
According to The Times of Israel, Damascus reports that, on Monday, Israel launched four strikes, killing five Syrian soldiers and eight Hezbollah fighters, and wounding others.
Should Assad or Hezbollah retaliate, this could bring Israel more openly into the Syrian civil war. And if Israel is attacked, the pressure on Washington to join her in attacking the Syrian regime and Hezbollah would become intense.
Yet, should we accede to that pressure, it could bring us into direct conflict with Russia, which is now the fighting ally of the Assad regime.
Something U.S. presidents conscientiously avoided through 45 years of Cold War – a military clash with Moscow – could become a real possibility. Does the White House see what is unfolding here?
Elsewhere, yet another Russia-NATO clash may be brewing.
In southern Ukraine, pylons supporting the power lines that deliver electricity to Crimea have been sabotaged, blown up, reportedly by nationalists, shutting off much of the electric power to the peninsula.
Repair crews have been prevented from fixing the pylons by Crimean Tatars, angry at the treatment of their kinfolk in Crimea.
In solidarity with the Tatars, Kiev has declared that trucks carrying goods to Crimea will not be allowed to cross the border.
A state of emergency has been declared in Crimea.
Russia is retaliating, saying it will not buy produce from Ukraine, and may start cutting off gas and coal as winter begins to set in.
Ukraine is as dependent upon Russia for fossil fuels as Crimea is upon Ukraine for electricity. Crimea receives 85 percent of its water and 80 percent of its electricity from Ukraine.
Moreover, Moscow’s hopes for a lifting of U.S. and EU sanctions, imposed after the annexation of Crimea, appear to be fading.
Are these events coordinated? Has the U.S. government given a go-ahead to Erdogan to shoot down Russian planes? Has Obama authorized a Ukrainian economic quarantine of Crimea?
For Vladimir Putin is not without options. The Russian Army and pro-Russian rebels in southeast Ukraine could occupy Mariupol on the Black Sea and establish a land bridge to Crimea in two weeks.
In Syria, the Russians, with 4,000 troops, could escalate far more rapidly than either us or our French allies.
As of today, Putin supports U.S.-French attacks on ISIS. But if we follow the Turks and begin aiding the rebels who are attacking the Syrian army, we could find ourselves eyeball to eyeball in a confrontation with Russia, where our NATO allies will be nowhere to be found.
Has anyone thought this through?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- Is Putin Our Ally in Syria? – November 16th, 2015
- The Republican War – Over War Policy – November 12th, 2015
- War in Syria? Where Is Speaker Ryan? – November 2nd, 2015
- America in Search of a Cause? – October 22nd, 2015
- To End Wars – Trump vs. Sanders – October 15th, 2015
RickR30
November 26th, 2015 at 10:50 pm
The neocons have thought this through and their plans are being realized and the "Obama administration" can do nothing about it apparently.
The Artist
November 26th, 2015 at 11:32 pm
The only reason Turkey even exists today is because the British decided to save them in the Crimean war 1853-1856. Russia back then suggested that the world would be a better place without Turkey and the British scrambled a quick alliance with the French and the Turks. The British did this not because of their great love for Turkey, but because they didn't wanted to strengthen Russia's hand by giving them the Bosphorus and Turkey's European possessions. There were two more opportunities to completely strip Turkey of their European possessions – in the Balkan wars 1912-1913 and in the First World War.
Thanks to those missed opportunities, Turkey today still claims to be an "European" country, going as far as applying for membership in EU. Even though their European possessions make only 2% of the total Turkish territory. They should have never been allowed to keep parts of Europe – and not just any parts – but the holiest site of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That's like Vatican being in the hands of those infidels. Why did Christian Europe allowed this to happen? Because in their eyes only the followers of the Catholic church and its derivatives are "real" Christians and they would rather see Aya Sofia in Muslim hands than in the hands of their rightful owners – The Eastern Orthodox. Some Christians they are.
Also, containment of Russia is not a policy invented by the Americans – it's been around for at least 300 years. The Americans only picked up the torch from the British. The mess in Syria and Ukraine and the shooting down of the Russian SU-24 are just a continuation of that policy.
Duglarri
November 27th, 2015 at 12:15 am
You skip a missed opportunity in your listing of the history. In 1921 the West did try to eliminate Turkey, and sponsored a Greek attempt to hive off the coastal areas that had been Greek for three thousand years. But no one counted on Kemal pulling the core of the Ottoman Empire back together and kicking the Greeks out, and further ruthlessly establishing a secular Turkish state, contrary to all the power of the Empires of the time. We should applaud this part of the story, all the more so because the story now is Erdogan reversing the modernization Kemal established, and returning Turkey to the Islamist, Ottoman mold Kemal worked so hard to end.
Welcome back to the 13th century, folks.
bubbletea
November 27th, 2015 at 12:16 am
and when syria, enforced by russia and those shiny new s-400 systems,
declares a no-fly zone over syria…..and parts of turkey as a "buffer zone"?
paulBass
November 27th, 2015 at 3:44 am
thats how Constantinople fell in the first place,
the roman empire fell to the turks because the roman catholics hated it more than anything else.
the roman (Byzantium) empire survived 400 years of wars with calphate, and retook land from the muslims after the caliphates collapse.
its was internal civil war and treachery of the Catholics that allowed Anatolia and Constantinople to fall to the turks.
but that being said, once the turks controlled Constantinople they reestablished a bureaucracy that was the envy of every european power, and for much of its history it was more european the europe(if my european we mean roman)
paulBass
November 27th, 2015 at 3:44 am
thats how Constantinople fell in the first place,
the roman empire fell to the turks because the roman catholics hated it more than anything else.
the roman (Byzantium) empire survived 400 years of wars with the caliphate, and retook land from the muslims after the caliphates collapse.
its was internal civil war and treachery of the Catholics that allowed Anatolia and Constantinople to fall to the turks.
but that being said, once the turks controlled Constantinople they reestablished a bureaucracy that was the envy of every european power, and for much of its history it was more european than europe(if by european we mean roman)
Mark_Thomason
November 27th, 2015 at 4:04 am
Yes, it does seem these ideas are thought about in only one direction. That is a recipe for ugly surprise.
follyofwar
November 27th, 2015 at 5:42 am
Rick, typical of those idiots though, they have only thought this halfway through. They've also started with the wrong premise, which is that Assad must be removed from power at all costs.
follyofwar
November 27th, 2015 at 5:59 am
While the world's media concentrates on the ugliness in Syria, Mr. Buchanan points out that things are getting more explosive in Ukraine. What is more important to Russia, Syria or neighboring Ukraine? Master strategist Vladimir Putin may be getting ready to let the troops loose by annexing the Donbass (and other parts?) while few are watching. Many wonder why he did not do this in the first place, right after the illegal coup, possibly saving thousands of lives.
dahoit
November 27th, 2015 at 6:47 am
Why excuse Obomba?
Mr.Buchanan,its been obvious for quite awhile that we are the bad guys.
dahoit
November 27th, 2015 at 6:52 am
Lets stop the stupid religious aspects of this.It's kind of obvious everyone hates and doesn't believe in god,leave Him out of it.
The Turks are a powerful ethnic force in the region,and have been for 800 years or so.They have interests,just like Russia and everyone else.To insult them is childish.But their leadership,Erdogan,has shown himself as a bush league pol,they deserve better than medieval resurrection of ethnic superiority and empire.
follyofwar
November 27th, 2015 at 7:18 am
dahoit, Perhaps it's because the different sides all believe in their own version of god. If they truly did not believe in god, the world wouldn't even be in this dire situation.
RickR30
November 27th, 2015 at 7:57 am
Exactly.
RickR30
November 27th, 2015 at 7:58 am
I'm not excusing Obama. On the contrary. His lack of leadership in his own administration is the cause of all this. It's all in his hands.
Rich
November 27th, 2015 at 8:44 am
I don't know that it was the fault of the Roman Church, I think secular powers in the West, the Venetians and Normans, sold out the Eastern Roman Empire in order to take over Byzantine trade routes. The Bishop of Constantinople actually offered to accept the Roman Bishop as Pope if the West provided support against the Ottomans. I realize it's a very complicated history but in the end,it's a shame the West couldn't see past it's greed to save what could have been a very powerful ally and prevented Ottoman atrocities that plagued the world for generations.
paulBass
November 27th, 2015 at 9:07 am
"The Byzantine Empire. by Charles William Chadwick Oman "
being my main source on this topic,
i did not say that the catholic hatred was the only reason for the roman fall,
at the time of the Turkish invasion i believe there were 5 separate pretenders to the thrown of Byzantium.
and i very much so disagree with the notion of "Ottoman atrocities that plagued the world for generations." without any examples.
Michael Kenny
November 27th, 2015 at 9:24 am
Mr Buchanan is a little bit out of date. Putin has essentially capitulated to Turkey and the Ukrainian government announced yesterday that it would no longer buy gas from Russia, having found another supplier. It has been clear for some time that Putin is scared silly of using ground forces, whether in Ukraine or in Syria but if he were to invade Ukraine, the threat that such action would imply to NATO members from Estonia down to Bulgaria would be more than sufficient to trigger Article V of the NATO Treaty. Since he has now capitulated in Syria, he'll probably capitulate in Ukraine as well.
Michael Kenny
November 27th, 2015 at 9:31 am
Full circle! We're back to "Putin the Clever"! If Putin were to invade Ukraine, the world's media would very quickly forget ISIS! And the threat that such action would imply to NATO members from Estonia down to Bulgaria would be more than sufficient to trigger Article V of the NATO Treaty. That would focus European and US media entirely on Ukraine. It is indeed a good question why Putin didn't invade Ukraine right after the coup. If he had invaded, restored Yanukovych to power and then left, he'd have got away with it. Instead, he tried to grab Ukrainian territory for himself. Now, he's bogged down in Ukraine and bogged down in Syria. Master strategist my foot! The man is a blundering idiot!
Michael Kenny
November 27th, 2015 at 9:34 am
Indeed. If Obama had firmly resisted Putin in Ukraine, there'd be no ISIS to fight in the first place. ISIS simply saw America running for home with its tail between its legs, leaving its friends in the lurch in a "made in USA" mess and concluded thet if the US wouldn't fight for its European friends, it wouldn't fight for Israel either.
Michael Kenny
November 27th, 2015 at 9:38 am
I far as I can see, neocon plans were to use Putin as a battering ram to destroy the EU, perceived as a threat to US global hegemony, itself perceived as essential to the defence of Israel. Problem is Putin double-crossed his neocon handlers by grabbing Ukrainian territory by force, which I don't think was in their "script". I get the impression that they think that they can somehow get their monster back under control but I don't think they can. Putin has made so many silly mistakes that he now has no credibility as a political leader.
RickR30
November 27th, 2015 at 9:42 am
That's laughable. Now Putin and not the US is responsible for IS? You've got issues my friend.
Michael Kenny
November 27th, 2015 at 10:11 am
Don't forget the war with Italy in 1911-12, when the Italians seized what we now call Libya as well as all but one of the Dodecanese. In the First Balkan war, the Bulgarians got almost to the gates of Constantinople, but in the Second, Turkey managed to get back the tiny sliver of Europe it holds today. The idea of Turkey as a "European" dates from the 1920s. It was not invited to the Congress of Vienna, for example, and was slowly driven out of its European empire all through the 19th century. Russia has coveted the Straits for centuries as part of its desire to obtain warm-water ports, the same desire that got them into the unsuccessful war with Japan in 1904/5. Since the population of Istanbul is now almost entirely Turkish, the idea of Russia getting the Straits is totally unreal in today's world. Someday, Russia will get a leader that will pursue the logic of the Congress of Vienna and see that Russia's access to warm water can be secured only by co-operation with the rest of Europe, which nowadays means the EU.
Michael Kenny
November 27th, 2015 at 10:19 am
Since nothing Russia is really hightech, I wouldn't set too much store by the s-400s, which is really just a slightly modernised version of the s-300, itself in service since 1978. Since a Russian no-fly zone in Syria and even more so, a buffer zone in Turkey would be a surefire way to get Putin into a war with NATO, I doubt if even he would be that stupid. But if he wants to get into a general war, let him!
Russia retaliates - Page 10
November 27th, 2015 at 10:21 am
[…] over downed Russian jet Seems there are some protests Putin doesn't mind Anyhow, read this: Stumbling to War With Russia? – Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com Very […]
follyofwar
November 27th, 2015 at 11:18 am
Two points Michael: 1) Ukraine is not a NATO member so how would that trigger Article V of the NATO Treaty? 2) I agree with you that Putin could have invaded Ukraine right after the coup. The new fascist junta was not yet organized and it might have been pretty easy. I actually questioned Putin's caution at the time. I've also read that there were many on the Russian Right who wanted him to invade. Perhaps you are correct that Putin may not be the master strategist after all.
RickR30
November 27th, 2015 at 11:39 am
How on earth are you seeing something like that?
Putin an instrument of the neocons??? The EU a threat to the US, when the EU is wholesale owned by the US or rather both the US and EU are owned by whoever the hell runs the world (into the ground). And where is this Ukrainian territory that the Putin grabbed by force?
I'll put it this way, your worldview doesn't conform much to reality.
follyofwar
November 27th, 2015 at 11:45 am
Before the Sochi Olympics, PJB wrote a column that Obama should attend. What better time to make nice? Obama's ridiculous excuse for not going was that Russia discriminated against gays. Does anyone believe that excuse? While Putin was preoccupied with keeping the Olympics safe, Victoria Nuland and her ilk were doing their dirty work fomenting their Ukrainian coup. Is it any coincidence that Ukraine exploded right after the Olympics ended?
Also, I think back to the conversation that first-term Obama had with Medvedev which was caught on an open mic. Obama was roundly ridiculed by our MSM for telling the Russian leader that he would be more flexible with Russia after his re-election. Medvedev said he would relay the message to Vladimir. Question: What the H**L happened? Many assumed there would be better relations with Russia in an Obama second term. Does it go back to Putin making Obama look foolish when he thwarted Obama's reckless plan to bomb Damascus over chemical weapons that Assad never used?
Minnesota Mary
November 27th, 2015 at 4:27 pm
The Neocom Network talking heads ridiculed Obama mercilessly after Putin succeeded in getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons, thereby pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for Obama. The Neocons kept denigrating Obama as" being weak, leading from behind, a paper tiger" etc. etc. etc. Instead of recoiling against the Neocoms, Obama turned on Putin. Evidently he believed the Neocoms when they said that Putin had made him look like a fool. Thus, Obama has been out to hurt Putin ever since.
Chaz
November 27th, 2015 at 4:56 pm
What is the Islamic State but a cult with magical thinking. If they can't ship oil, they are weakened. The Turkish shoot-down is a one trick pony. Obama's gut instinct is not to over react.
Rich
November 27th, 2015 at 9:51 pm
Ottoman atrocities – Aleppo massacre 5000 killed
Druze-Maronite massacre 25000 killed
Hauron massacre 2000 killed
Batak massacre between 5000 and 7000 killed
3 to 5 million Greeks, Armenians ans Assyrians murdered
This is just a short list and doesn't include the rapes, tortures and mutilations committed by the Ottoman Turks.
follyofwar
November 28th, 2015 at 5:51 am
I totally agree, MM. Obama made himself look weaker than ever when he caved to the neocoms (that's what they really are – nothing conservative about them). Obama does not take it lightly when someone makes him look foolish, as Putin did. He also will not reconsider his errors when someone (Assad) crosses his "red line." I often think that Bombs Away McCain won in '08 after all.
Stumbling to War With Russia? | 9/11 - A Cheap Magic Trick
November 28th, 2015 at 7:01 am
[…] Read more […]
Matt
November 28th, 2015 at 9:55 am
Oh STFU with that crap, yeah, I'm sure you're volunteering to go fight that fight right? Grow up moron.
Matt
November 28th, 2015 at 9:57 am
Yeah, who is this guy, 2nd comment I've read by him now and he's as clueless as they come, I almost think he's just acting like an idiot on purpose.
paulBass
November 28th, 2015 at 11:20 am
putting down armed rebellion,
the french were invading sengal the english south africa, the dutch, bali, the americans where finishing of the western native Americas,
nothing particularly gruesome or terrible except that it was carried out by a muslim
inter communal violence between ethinic groups
if you want to talk about massacres commited by one ethinic group against anouther with tacit support from the empire, once again we could have a nice long look at what every european power was doing at this exact time.
(including fighting on the side of the ottoman empire against russia!)
and the results of the dismemberment of the empire can not be attributed to the empire.
all that being said, yes it was an empire it was heavy handed and oppressive and capricious and tyrannical, but so was every major european power.
unless i happened to misunderstand you? and you regularly refer to the "generational plague on the world" that was england, france america ect
Rich
November 28th, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Every European power? I've never read of the English or French raping little boys. The Ottoman is renowned throughout history as the cruelest of conquerors, unless, of course, you're a Turk who thinks the Armenians are "exaggerating" the murders of old men, women and children…The rest of us have read of their rapes of children, torture of enemy soldiers and total disregard for any semblance of civilized behavior up to this day, as evidenced by their present day support of ISIL.
Stuart Davies
November 29th, 2015 at 9:21 am
I'm very Glad to see Buchanan raising the events in Ukraine and Crimea in conjunction with those in Syria, because it has been obvious to me for the past two years or more that they are closely connected. The western cartel made a very deliberate decision to orchestrate the coup in Ukraine, in hopes that they might just bag the crucial Russian warm water naval base – the only one they have – in Sevastopol in Crimea. Their intention was to make a feint along the entire Western border of Russia, threaten a full scale war with Ukraine and NATO in that zone, and thus pin down Russian military forces and hamstring Russia's ability to defend Syria, meanwhile allowing the cartel to employ their proxy militias ("ISIS", et al) to take down Assad and install a puppet government in his stead.
All along, the corporate cartel has been flirting with WW III, and of course they knew this very well. Unfortunately, their desperately dangerous strategy has not worked out as they intended it to. Putin is a master chess player – he is outmaneuvering them in Syria, and even their short term gains in Ukraine will work against them in the longer term. All of these events (and others that preceded them) make it plain that the cold war never went away, it just went underground for twenty years. It heated up to a low simmer two years ago in Ukraine, and now is threatening to boil over on the entire world.
Stuart Davies
November 29th, 2015 at 9:22 am
Buchanan obliquely tip toes to a question that most US commentators would never dare to consider here: "And what about us? Was the U.S. government aware Turkey might attack Russian planes? Did we give Erdogan a green light to shoot them down? These are not insignificant questions."
Let me answer that question for you, Mr. Buchanan. Turkey is a subordinate vassal state of the western transnational corporate cartel, just like the United States, except much lower on their totem pole. OF COURSE Turkey was "given the green light" to shoot down the Russian bomber, there is no way in hell they would have dared to make such a dangerous and provocative move without direct orders from the very top.
Stuart Davies
November 29th, 2015 at 9:24 am
But Putin has countered that clumsy thrust with his usual finesse, showing both restraint and firm resolve in his masterful parry – he has effectively established a Syrian-Russian "no fly" zone by deploying Russia's S-400 advanced anti-aircraft system that will render Syrian airspace extremely perilous to any cartel aircraft. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/… Chew on THAT, boys.
In spite of some of the valid points Buchanan raises here, he is clearly clueless about some of the key aspects of this unfolding conflict, as is reflected in these statements: "Indeed, it now seems clear that in Syria’s civil war, Turkey is on the rebel-jihadist side (no kidding?)…But whose side are we on?.. As of today, Putin supports U.S.-French attacks on ISIS. But if we follow the Turks and begin aiding the rebels who are attacking the Syrian army, we could find ourselves eyeball to eyeball in a confrontation with Russia, where our NATO allies will be nowhere to be found."
Stuart Davies
November 29th, 2015 at 9:24 am
Let me help you out there, Pat, this should clear a few things up for you: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-decl… The sad fact is, we have all been subjected to a massive barrage of lies regarding the so called "War on Terror" and the various Radical Muslim Bogeymen that we have ostensibly been subjected to terrorist attacks from and are ostensibly at "war" with. In truth, the CIA and affiliated cartel intelligence agencies have recruited, funded, trained, armed, and deployed these mercenary militias throughout the "Arc of Crisis" for more than sixty years to further the covert geopolitical agenda of the transnational elites that control our governments. So, no, Pat, there have been no US and French "attacks" on "ISIS", because they are the cartel's "boots on the ground", and in fact have NATO block special forces fighting with them and directing their moves. This is why "ISIS" has EXPANDED their control of the territory where they have supposedly been attacked by US fighter bombers.
Putin, of course, is fully aware of this, and has been aware all along.He has made this very clear in several interviews, press conferences, and statements recently. But of course, just like the release of declassified US documents that show that the US and allies funded and trained "ISIS", these things never see the light of day in the transnational corporate media. We are indeed stumbling towards WW III, and most of the world remains oblivious to that fact, mesmerized by the transnational cartel's fake reality electronic media hologram projector.
But Putin has countered that clumsy thrust with his usual finesse, showing both restraint and firm resolve in his masterful parry – he has effectively established a Syrian-Russian "no fly" zone by deploying Russia's S-400 advanced anti-aircraft system that will render Syrian airspace extremely perilous to any cartel aircraft. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/… Chew on THAT, boys.
Stuart Davies
November 29th, 2015 at 9:25 am
In spite of some of the valid points Buchanan raises here, he is clearly clueless about some of the key aspects of this unfolding conflict, as is reflected in these statements: "Indeed, it now seems clear that in Syria’s civil war, Turkey is on the rebel-jihadist side (no kidding?)…But whose side are we on?.. As of today, Putin supports U.S.-French attacks on ISIS. But if we follow the Turks and begin aiding the rebels who are attacking the Syrian army, we could find ourselves eyeball to eyeball in a confrontation with Russia, where our NATO allies will be nowhere to be found."
Let me help you out there, Pat, this should clear a few things up for you: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-decl… The sad fact is, we have all been subjected to a massive barrage of lies regarding the so called "War on Terror" and the various Radical Muslim Bogeymen that we have ostensibly been subjected to terrorist attacks from and are ostensibly at "war" with. In truth, the CIA and affiliated cartel intelligence agencies have recruited, funded, trained, armed, and deployed these mercenary militias throughout the "Arc of Crisis" for more than sixty years to further the covert geopolitical agenda of the transnational elites that control our governments. So, no, Pat, there have been no US and French "attacks" on "ISIS", because they are the cartel's "boots on the ground", and in fact have NATO block special forces fighting with them and directing their moves. This is why "ISIS" has EXPANDED their control of the territory where they have supposedly been attacked by US fighter bombers.
Putin, of course, is fully aware of this, and has been aware all along.He has made this very clear in several interviews, press conferences, and statements recently. But of course, just like the release of declassified US documents that show that the US and allies funded and trained "ISIS", these things never see the light of day in the transnational corporate media. We are indeed stumbling towards WW III, and most of the world remains oblivious to that fact, mesmerized by the transnational cartel's fake reality electronic media hologram projector.
Stuart Davies
November 29th, 2015 at 9:33 am
To be fair, Rick, the Obama administration does not call the shots within the transnational corporate cartel empire. Nor do the US neocons for that matter, although their thinking is obviously very much in sync with those who do call the shots.
Not surprisingly, Patrick Buchanan has been deceived by the same smokescreen of lies and propaganda that has captured the minds of most of the world, but I have to give him a bit of credit for a few good points he raises here, especially these ones: "Nor is this the end of the alarming news. According to The Times of Israel, Damascus reports that, on Monday, Israel launched four strikes, killing five Syrian soldiers and eight Hezbollah fighters, and wounding others… this could bring Israel more openly into the Syrian civil war (no shit, Pat?)… the pressure on Washington to join her in attacking the Syrian regime and Hezbollah would become intense…Yet, should we accede to that pressure, it could bring us into direct conflict with Russia, which is now the fighting ally of the Assad regime. Something U.S. presidents conscientiously avoided through 45 years of Cold War – a military clash with Moscow – could become a real possibility. Does the White House see what is unfolding here?"