Eric Zuesse

According to Britain’s Telegraph, in a recent report, the U.S. Tow antitank missiles that U.S. President Barack Obama sent in October to the Islamic Sunni fighters in Syria to use against the forces of the non-sectarian Shiite ruler there, Bashar al-Assad, have been so effective against Russia’s forces that Assad had invited in, that Russia — defending (upon Syria’s legal request) President Assad’s forces, and attacking the jihadists imported into Syria by the Saudis and the rest of the West — is now being forced to send into the battle Russia’s costly T-90 tanks, which are less vulnerable to America’s missiles. "The deployment of the T-90s appears to reflect Moscow’s frustration at this failure ['getting sucked into a costly and possibly lengthy fight’], as well as concern over the damage inflicted by the rebels’ anti-tank missiles, themselves supplied by the regime’s arch-rivals in the Gulf states [specifically Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait] and Turkey.” All of those invading nations (other than the United States) are controlled by Sunni aristocrats, supporters and enforcers of Sharia Law, who (backed up by the U.S.) intend to take over and control the existing non-secular government of Syria, which is run by Bashar al-Assad, and impose Sharia Law.

The Telegraph, as a propaganda-medium for the British aristocracy, which aristocracy is allied like a “lap-dog" with the U.S. aristocracy, doesn’t so much as even mention the U.S. nor its Tow missiles that were sent into Syria through Turkey, precisely in order to protect their terrorists against the Russian-Syrian forces. Those U.S.-made missiles were purchased and now owned by “the Gulf states” — specifically, by the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait — all of which fund the terrorists (for examples, see this and this). However, the Telegraph article does prominently make note that, "Deployment of T-90 tanks is [the] latest sign that [the] Kremlin is being forced to escalate its intervention from an air to a ground war.”

The cost of a Tow antitank missile is only $180,000. The cost of a T-90 tank is $4.5M, which is 25 times as much. This is therefore a battlefield strategy designed to bleed Russia’s economy to death. That’s how Obama intends now to conquer Russia, on the battlefields of Syria — to use Syria against Russia, in the same way that ‘we’ had used Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. And the man speaking there, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is a longtime personal friend and advisor of Obama. The identical strategy is being repeated, but this time without the ideological gloss of a conflict between communism and capitalism. It’s just raw conquest the U.S. aristocracy want, and are determined to get. The jihadist Sunni aristocracies work hand-in-glove with America’s — and, incidentally, buy their U.S. weapons, such as here and here. Add in America’s NATO alliance, and it’s an awesome combination they’re using against Russia. The strategy and weapons come mainly from America; the money comes mainly from the Saud family. But none of this is even mentioned in the Telegraph’s piece.

This propaganda-article in the Telegraph then goes on subtly to blame Syria’s anti-jihadist President, Assad, for the jihadists who are trying to overthrow him: "Experts say the Russian intervention is prolonging a conflict that has already claimed the lives of more than a quarter of a million Syrians, causing millions to flee abroad as world world powers pile in to join an escalating civil war.” In other words, according to the Telegraph: if only Russia hadn’t, on 30 September 2015, joined the battle against the jihadists who have been sent by the U.S. and the Sunni aristocrats, into Syria, then the EU wouldn’t be flooded with refugees from Syria, which refugees had actually already been flooding in long before Russia even started its bombing on September 30th.

That article in the Telegraph is thus a superb example of really professional propaganda, which skillfully exploits its readers’ stupidity and cultural (here, basically pro-American) biases or prejudices: it reverses the blame onto the actual victim (the non-sectarian leaders of Syria), and hides the actual guilty parties (which support the Telegraph, and buy ads in it for their companies). Furthermore, the Telegraph article implies (without providing any evidence at all) that the victim of the U.S. alliance’s invasion of Syria, the anti-jihadist Syrian President and his forces, is instead the victimizer, and the source of America’s (illegal — which they ignore) invasion there. (Of course, a reader has to be stupid to fall for any of that, but PR is always exploiting people’s stupidity — that’s what it does, and that’s how it works, and how it’s designed to work.)

In a journalism class, I would thus cite this article in the Telegraph as an example of how sophisticated the propaganda operation by the West is against Russia and its allies. ‘Journalism’ students (especially ones who aim to work for financially well-endowed ‘news’ media) need to know how to do this, because it’s what they’ll be paid to do, once they get out into the world of ‘journalism,’ to ‘earn’ a living (actually, serve the aristocrats). Informally, this is called simply “pleasing the clients.” Military contractors are increasingly important clients, and they do especially well in such ‘news’ media — but they’re not the only ones who do. For example, the corporations who want to control vital natural resources also do, and . (And, even the World Bank acknowledges the “natural resource curse,” though without mentioning it, and though ignoring that its basis is the threat and reality of invasions by foreign aristocracies — such as America’s — something that’s unmentionable by an institution which, like the World Bank, is indirectly financed largely by such invasions.)

nction isn’t merely in the press; it’s also in academia, and throughout the aristocracy itself — which funds both the press, and academia.

As is usually the case when reading ‘news,’ this article in the Telegraph is far more reliable, and informative, in what it reveals behind its lines, than on its lines. And what it reveals behind its lines is the way the world works.

Putting it all together, in this manner: America’s salvaging victory for the jihadists in Syria makes brilliant sense. But it’s not what’s on the lines that Western ‘news’ media report. It’s only behind the lines, where the real sense is found.

On December 15th, representatives of all of the many jihadist groups that comprise the Western coalition to defeat Assad and Russia were to be meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the Saud family was to select (with U.S. advice and consent) which of the terrorist groups are ‘moderates’ and will thus be supported by the West to take over Syria. The meeting fell apart even before it started. The Sauds’ demands, however, were clear: On December 10th, UPI headlined from Riyadh, “Saudi Arabia: Assad Must Resign Or Be Forcibly Removed For Peace Success.” Such are the West’s ‘democratic’ allies. They refuse to allow what Assad and Putin have been insisting upon: a Syrian Presidential election that will be internationally monitored, and not concluded unless and until the international monitors announce that the results were not produced by fraud. The reason that the West refuses a democratic determination of the matter is that even the polling that has been done in Syria by Western polling firms consistently shows that Assad would win any democratic election in Syria overwhelmingly. And the reason why Assad would win is obvious: the U.S fostered this war at least from the moment that Barack Obama became America’s President, and most Syrians , for their misery. And so, theyloathe America . They know that America leads this invasion, from behind the scenes.

r Angela Merkel was asked about Syria’s war, in an interview published Saturday December 12th in Munich’s Evening Times, and she said:

The International Alliance against the Islamic State does not include Assad and his troops. Let us not forget that the majority of refugees who have come to us are fleeing Assad. He throws still more barrel bombs on his own [jihadist] people [so she implies let’s protect them!]. He must not remain as the head of state there. We still need to speak to all groups in Syria together, for a political solution to the conflict.

The obedient interviewer asked no follow-up questions of her lies. The Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. ‘international alliance’ she was referring to, fighting to replace Assad with an anti-Russian stooge, does not include Assad and his troops, who have been fighting against the Islamic State since 2011; but, clearly, it does include Merkel’s German government, whose own population is now rebelling against the refugees from America’s Middle Eastern invasions into Syria and Libya. Instead of Europeans blaming America, the European stooges such as Merkel are blaming Assad, for this war that . When she says most of the refugees are “fleeing Assad” instead of fleeing her own alliance (which is largely Islamist itself), she simply lies. And when she insists upon “a political solution to the conflict,” she is simply insisting that Assad must be forced out and be excluded from being a candidate in any ‘democratic’ election, because she knows he’d win it.

ted: “We extend our military mission against the Islamic State now legitimized by international law by Iraq on Syria.” However, that too is a lie: Germany is instead joining America’s illegal invasion of both countries. Russia had been invited in; the U.S. and its allies are instead invading the sovereign territory both of Syria and of Iraq — but especially of Syria, which never authorized America’s invasion (see this and this and this and this and this — it’s all a U.S. invasion).

Isn’t today’s ‘Western democracy’ a marvelous thing? It’s such a modern form of dictatorship. And, sometimes, even major international figures acknowledge that that’s what it is. But, of course, the press in a dictatorship (with few and tiny exceptions such as here) hides such realities. So, maybe pass this around to all your friends. Let them in on the secret, too. Maybe it’s not the most that a reader of this can do, but it’s the least — and shouldn’t it be done? Or: how should one respond to this knowledge?

After all: this could be the build-up to a nuclear war, between ‘the West’ and Russia. Shouldn’t people who live in the West (not only in Russia) know that?

And it’s all for what? For whose benefit? Is that fair? Is that good? Is that even tolerable?

-###-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.
.