[D66] Western Media Hype ‘Russian Aggression’ in Syria

[J.N.]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/15/western-media-hype-russian-aggression-in-syria/

September 15, 2015
Western Media Hype ‘Russian Aggression’ in Syria

by Eric Draitser

>From Washington to the western media, everyone has been talking about
reports of potential Russian ‘intervention’ in Syria. On the one hand,
the proliferation of this meme is a case study in the western propaganda
system, as one report is then repeated ad nauseam from thousands of
sources, then built upon by subsequent reports, thereby manufacturing
the irrefutable truth from the perspective of media pundits and western
mouthpieces. On the other hand, the new reports also raise some
interesting questions about the motives of both the US and Russia, as
well as the other interested parties to the conflict in Syria.

In examining this new chapter of the ongoing war in Syria, two critical
and interrelated points seem to rise above all others in importance: Why
is the western media hyping this narrative of Russian intervention? And
why is direct Russian involvement, limited though it may be, seen as
such a threat by the US?

Dissecting the Propaganda

An Israeli publication reported that Russian air power would be
increasing in Syria with “Russian jets in Syrian skies,” as the headline
read. While all the information came from unnamed “western diplomatic
sources,” and was accompanied by little more than assertions of fact
without any tangible evidence, the media outcry began almost
immediately, with literally hundreds of news outlets reporting the same
information. Within 24 hours however, a Russian military source denied
the allegations, saying,“There has been no redeployment of Russian
combat aircraft to the Syrian Arab Republic…The Russian Air Force is at
its permanent bases and carrying out normal troop training and combat duty.”

Almost as if on cue, the next day The Daily Beast published a story
claiming that there were Russian boots on the ground in Syria, as well
as large shipments of military materiel en route to Syria, including
trucks and BTR infantry fighting vehicles. The article cited Turkish
navy photos showing a Russian ship purportedly carrying the cargo, quite
openly it must be said (more on this later).

Naturally, the conversation in Washington instantly became about Russian
intervention and the danger of Russia “destabilizing” the situation in
Syria, an assertion that would be laughable if it weren’t so deeply
cynical and hypocritical considering four and a half years of
US-NATO-GCC-Israel intervention in Syria.

Official denials of escalation from Moscow did nothing to calm tensions
on the issue as US Secretary of State Kerry calledRussian Foreign
Minister Lavrov to voice concerns that Russian involvement could
escalate the conflict. After the call, the State Department released a
statement explaining that the US had:

...concerns about reports suggesting an imminent enhanced Russian
buildup [in Syria]. The secretary made clear that if such reports were
accurate, these actions could further escalate the conflict, lead to
greater loss of innocent life, increase refugee flows and risk
confrontation with the anti-ISIL coalition operating in Syria… The two
agreed that discussions on the Syrian conflict would continue in New
York later this month.

A careful reading of this short, but important, statement should raise
one obvious question: what does the State Department mean by “reports”?
Specifically, the initial Israeli report was allegedly based on
intelligence from key Western (presumably US) sources that would
obviously have access to classified information. Were that true, then
surely the State Department would be alarmed by the intelligence, and
not the reports.

In other words, the US military and government, with its vast
surveillance and intelligence apparatus, knows perfectly well if a true
Russian military buildup in Syria is really happening. Instead, the
State Department focuses on the media reports, indicating that, rather
than responding to intelligence, it is responding to a media story, one
which is based entirely on information the US itself supplied.

So, the dramatic reaction to the reports is essentially a reaction to a
story they themselves planted. Translation: Washington is hyping the
story in order to further its political position, and to weaken
Russia’s, by framing the debate as one of ‘Russian interventionism.’

And, in true western corporate propaganda fashion, the reports have been
built upon since then. There are now allegations that Russia is building
“a huge 1,000 personnel compound,” and even a report from the decidedly
dubious DebkaFile – an outlet notoriously close to Israeli intelligence
which has published as much disinformation as credible information –
alleging that the Russians have deployed a submarine loaded with 20
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and 200 nuclear warheads to
Syria. All of this is an attempt to further bolster the narrative that
Russia is the aggressor, attempting to escalate the conflict in Syria
for its own purposes.

Returning to the information on the trucks being supplied through the
Bosphorous, as reported in international press, there is a painfully
obvious question that must be asked; namely why Moscow would choose to
initiate a covert military buildup but would transport the equipment
openly, in plain sight of any naval intelligence or satellite imagery.
Obviously, it is because Russia is not doing this covertly, but is
merely continuing to supply the Syrian government as it has done since 2011.

And that is precisely the point that Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria
Zakharova made in a recent interview. She noted that, “We have always
supplied equipment to them for their struggle against terrorists…We are
supporting them, we were supporting them and we will be supporting
them.” In other words, there is nothing secret about what Russia is
providing to the Syrian government under its existing contracts.

This is also in keeping with comments from Russian President Putin who
confirmed what all serious analysts following the conflict in Syria
already knew, that Russian advisers have been providing training and
logistical support to the Syrian military. Of course, based on the hype
in western media, one could be forgiven for thinking that Russia’s
military had moved in and taken command of the war effort in Syria. In
reality, Russia’s participation from a logistical and advisory
perspective has been rather limited.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Moscow is stepping up its aid and
engagement in Syria, but it obviously has not fundamentally changed its
policy. As one source confirmed to Reuters this week, “The Russians are
no longer just advisors…The Russians have decided to join the war
against terrorism.” Indeed, another of the sources noted that, “[The
Russians] have started in small numbers, but the bigger force did not
yet take part … Russians [are] taking part in Syria but they did not yet
join the fight against terrorism strongly.”

These statements are particularly interesting if set against the media
narrative being portrayed in the West, as well as the language employed
by the State Department and White House which was quoted as saying “We
would welcome constructive Russian contributions to the counter-ISIL
effort, but we’ve been clear that it would be unconscionable for any
party, including the Russians, to provide any support to the Assad regime.”

Analysts with knowledge of the situation seem convinced that Russian
participation is geared towards helping the Syrian government in the
fight against terror groups such as ISIS/ISIL and Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra
Front, and that the increased presence is clear evidence of Moscow’s
commitment to anti-terrorism. This presents a complex quandary for
Washington which pays lip service to counter-terrorism while
simultaneously describing as “unconscionable” any effective
counter-terrorism aid in the war.

What is perhaps most interesting about the media coverage and comments
from US officials about Russian moves being “destabilizing,” is the fact
that since 2011 the western media has published literally thousands upon
thousands of articles documenting openly the role of US military and
intelligence, and its counterparts in NATO (including Turkey), Israel,
and the Gulf monarchies, in arming and training fighters to wage war
against the Syrian government (see here, here, here, here, here, andhere
for just a tiny sample). Somehow these actions are not considered
“meddling” or “destabilizing” to the conflict in Syria, while Russia’s
alleged involvement is cause for international outcry.

The Real Agenda

The obvious conclusion is that Russia’s aid to Syria has been critical
in stymieing Washington’s regime change agenda, thereby necessitating an
active propaganda assault to demonize Moscow’s moves both in regard to
supplying and aiding Damascus, and its calls to form a coalition against
the Islamic State and international terrorism. In effect, the media is
working to caricature Russia as an aggressor in Syria in order to
deflect attention from the fact that US efforts in Syria have failed,
and that the US has no intention of effectively fighting the terrorism
it continues to promote.

The US-NATO-GCC-Israel axis seeks to continue the war on Syria using any
means necessary, including continued support for terrorist factions such
as the so called “Army of Conquest,” al Qaeda linked groups like al
Nusra Front, and ISIS/ISIL. The ultimate goal is the collapse of the
Syrian state and the breaking of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance,
which would mean the final and permanent ejection of Russian influence
from the region.

Russia fully understands this strategic imperative for Washington, just
as it knows that terrorism is the principal weapon being employed in the
ongoing war. As such, Moscow has moved to bolster the Syrian government
(Russia knows that the Syrian Arab Army is the most effective
counter-terrorism fighting force) in order to provide it with the
necessary aid to continue to destroy terrorist groups. Moreover, any
additional Russian support in terms of advisers, increased shipments of
materiel, and/or limited numbers of combat troops, provide Damascus with
the physical resources necessary to wage the war.

At the largest level however, Moscow is moving to call Washington’s
bluff regarding the fight against the Islamic State, and terrorism
generally. Putin knows that the US does not want to destroy ISIS/ISIL,
but rather to manage its development in an attempt to steer it toward US
strategic objectives.

This strategy was outlined in the declassified 2012 US Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) document obtained by Judicial Watch, which
revealed that the US has knowingly promoted the spread of the Islamic
State since at least 2012 in order to use it as a weapon against the
Assad government. The document noted that, “…there is the possibility of
establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern
Syria…and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition
want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the
strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

So, by proposing an international coalition to defeat ISIS/ISIL, Putin
is essentially forcing the US either to admit that it is not serious
about destroying the terrorist network, or that it will only do so under
its own aegis, thereby exposing Washington’s motives as entirely
self-serving, and rooted in the US hegemonic agenda for the region.

But Washington will not simply allow Putin to outmaneuver it in terms of
public relations. Instead, it reverts to the tried and true, and still
remarkably effective, meme of Russian aggression. By portraying Russia
as the villain bent on arming the “brutal dictator,” the US hopes to
transform the discourse on Syria, moving from its own ghastly record of
arming terrorists and seeking the destruction of the state, to Russia
“meddling” in the conflict.

Keen political observers shouldn’t be fooled by this sort of sleight of
hand propaganda. But don’t tell the corporate media. They’re busy
working overtime, parroting US-NATO talking points, rather than asking
questions and seeking answers.

This article first appeared at New Eastern Outlook.

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.org and host of
CounterPunch Radio. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in
New York City. You can reach him at ericdraitser at gmail.com.