- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 673 Hour
- Reading permission
saltandpepper Post time: 2012-7-13 05:06
Hungry street d** is a nice compliment fot this female glutten.
in meantime voice of Russia:
The media circus around the recent visit to Moscow of the Syrian National Council’s delegation revealed some important cracks in the “anti-Russian front” of Western press reports on Russo-Syrian relations. The simplified picture created by the mainstream U.S. and EU press for months – that Moscow is “shielding” Bashar al-Assad while denying its people objective information on Syria – simply does not stand up to facts.
If Moscow is “shielding” Assad, then why are his bitterest enemies received by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov? If Russia is unwilling to inform its own people, then why is the leader of the SNC, Mr. Abdel Basset Sayda, given an opportunity to speak to dozens of reporters from all Russian media during a press conference at the state owned news agency, RIA Novosti?
CNN.com website summarized this more complicated reality, suddenly revealed to Western reporters, in the lead to its recent article, indicatively headlined “Russian Views On Syria More Nuanced Than They May Appear.” The author, Tom Watkins, having followed some of the recent events, came to a conclusion that sounds like heresy on the background of Mrs. Clinton’s recent statement about Russia “having to pay a price for its support of Assad.”
“The Russian government shares many of the U.S. concerns about the continuing violence in Syria, but Moscow is reluctant to embrace Washington’s proposals to solve them because it is wary of its motives,” Tom Watkins writes, thus revealing a whole new world to an average reader of the Washington Post or the New York Times. To support his point, Watkins quotes Jack Matlock, the former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1985-1991, now seen as the most successful American envoy to Russia since 1917.
“People at the embassy characterized our positions [i.e. the positions of the Russian and American side on the violence in Syria] as 95 percent the same,” Matlock is quoted as saying. “They have not been giving [Syria] offensive weapons, they’ve cut way back on weapons’ supplies… The point is that their position is not primarily motivated by trying to protect Assad in Syria.”
Mr. Matlock’s sober assessment of the situation is a stark counterpoint to the reaction of the mainstream media on both sides of North Atlantic, which concentrates on venting the anger and frustration of Syria’s armed opposition about their leaders’ failure to elicit Moscow’s 180 degrees change of course. It is interesting to note that, for example, the French daily Le Figaro continues to ascribe to Moscow’s brinksmanship in the Syrian conflict only the most unseemly motives.
“Being sure that Washington will not dispatch, at least in the near future, any troops to Syria, the Kremlin is getting active on the diplomatic front, satisfying its obsession to stay in the middle of the fray,” Le Figaro comments.
Since the beginning of the crisis, all kinds of egotistic motives were ascribed to Moscow’s activism: a desire to see a dictator in power, worries about the fate of its naval base in Syria, the wish to be unpleasant to Washington etc. Now it is the “obsession” with diplomatic exposure.
Dmitry Simes, the president of the U.S.-based Center for National Interest, offers a somewhat less negativist explanation. “Russia’s halt to arms sales to Damascus may have had nothing to do with international pressure,” Simes said in an interview to CNN’s “Amanpour” show earlier this week. “The Assad regime has no money to pay for Russian weapons… The Russian position, basically, is that if NATO and the United States want to interfere with Syria, Russia is not going to stop them, but Russia is not going to support it either.” Simes also called “unhelpful” Hillary Clinton’s assessment of Russia’s position as a position of a state that is “standing up for a tyrant.”
And what happens if the United States does interfere in Syria – not covertly, via CIA agents supplying weapons to the rebels, as it is doing now, according to the New York Times’ recent report – but overtly? Jack Matlock offers a pessimistic scenario.
“If there is overt, external intervention, it’s going to just make matters worse,” Matlock said. “In the final analysis, if a country is determined to have a civil war and we cannot prevent it, getting in the middle of it and killing more people does not really help things.”
One could not agree more.