Geez. The Western media is so full of nonsense and bravado today! No wonder most citizens from the so called ‘civilized nations’ are soooooo..... ignorant. Trying to find an article of substance regarding the G-8 meeting is difficult. Thankfully Chinese media had a decent one.
Xinhua-U.S., Russia able to overcome differences on Syria by "minimum consensus"
Despite disagreements on the Syrian crisis, the United States and Russia are expected to reach at least "minimum consensus" on ways to overcome the obstacles facing the Geneva peace conference likely to take place in July, analysts said.MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS TO BE TACKLED
U.S. President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are meeting Monday on the sidelines of a G8 summit in Northern Ireland and the Syrian issue will top their discussions, observers said
Syrian analysts agreed that the two leaders' meeting will address the United States' discontent with the involvement of the Lebanese Hezbollah militant group in the Syria's fighting, Russian 's rejection of the recent U.S. decision to render qualitative weapons to the rebels on the ground and the U.S. report that implicated the Syrian government of the usage of chemical weapons.
Safwan Akkash, a leading opposition figure, told Xinhua that Washington sees the involvement of Hezbollah in Syria's war as " game changer" as the militant group had largely helped the Syrian army to regain the strategic rebel stronghold of al-Qussair in central Syria.
After the sweeping victories of the Syrian army on several fronts, the rebels pleaded for help from their Western patrons and warned if the West does not send heavy weapons, they would surely lose their position at the possible future negotiations.I had done some posts on the battle for Al Qussay(i)r. Comparing it to Stalingrad. Thinking that was too dramatic. Now, I don’t think it was. The loss was greater then just the one battle. It was a total loss of the upper hand, completely, in ways I hadn't imagined. Going to digress briefly, but, relevantly. Came across an article yesterday. It seems it should be placed here. After reading this, I realized just how significant the Syrian Army win really was. And why the US/Israel/NATO warmongers responded the way they did.
Repercussions of Assad’s strategic victory in al-Qusayr
The Syrian military’s success in the al-Qusayr offensive should be regarded as a major victory for President Bashar al-Assad that obviously changed all the equations in the country.
The region had been a key supply route for the rebels fighting government forces in Homs, and the importance of al-Qusayr is redoubled by its location next to Lebanon and the potential role it could play if the conflict spilled over into that country.
The city was also a hub of intelligence activities against Syria and its allies in the region. Since 1983, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have given millions of dollars to the nomads living in the area and have used them as informants and agents. Over the past few years, these elements have been actively serving the intelligence agencies of those two countries and Israel. The recapture of al-Qusayr effectively neutralized these spy cells, and thus the Syrian government and Hezbollah regained their intelligence superiority in the region.
The Syrian government’s victory in al-Qusayr deprived Israel of the ability to acquire the intelligence necessary for bombing sensitive civilian and military sites in Syria. It has also significantly weakened Israeli intelligence agencies’ access to Hezbollah’s key locations in the Baalbek Valley. Al-Qusayr was the main supply route for rebels in nearby cities like Raqqah, and the Syrian military’s recapture of the city takes away one of their main tools in their battle against Assad.Israel lost big time....
The fall of al-Qusayr was also the fall of the enemy’s dreams that the conflict would spill over into neighboring Lebanon. The area could have become a key supply route for smuggling weaponry into Lebanon, where sectarian disputes in Tripoli and other places are very acute.
This is a great achievement for Assad and his ally Hezbollah, and the rebels are no longer capable of pressuring the government in Damascus through their influence on the very sensitive areas that are usually viewed as the Hezbollah heartland.
Digression over back to the Xinhua article:
Washington was quick to respond to the rebels' request. U.S. President Obama agreed Thursday to render weapons to the rebels on ground, but under the pretext of helping the rebels to counter the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons, such as agent sarin
The pretext of ‘chemical weapons’ was used because the US did not want to acknowledge that the tiny nation of Syria, and her people, kicked the global tyranny’s army to the curb.
Russia, Syria's main ally, rejected the U.S. decision to arm the rebels and Putin referred such a move as arming on "cannibals. "
Speaking on the eve of the G8 summit at a joint press conference with Britain's David Cameron, Putin said "I think you will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines, in front of the public and cameras."
"Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons?" he asked.
Yes, indeed Mr Putin. Those are the people Israel, US, Britain and others of their ilk want to support. Mr Putin knows that for a fact. So do you and I. NATO/Israel/GCC support terrorists and cry about terrorism. They create terrorism to enable their warmongering. It is a sick, sick game the NATO war machine is playing.
LESS IMPORTANT DETAILS ALSO TO BE DISCUSSED
Maher Morhej, a moderate opposition figure and head of the local Youth Party, told Xinhua that Obama and Putin are also expected to discuss some less important details, such as the Syrian government and the opposition parties' representation at the Geneva peace conference.
The Syrian government said it had chosen its "official" delegation to Geneva as the opposition groups have yet to come together to entrust a delegation to the much-anticipated conference.
Weather the decisions that emerged from the conference should be binding under the UN charter is likely to be tackled, Morhej said, adding that the mechanisms of holding the conference and its date would also be discussed.
Yet, both analysts agreed that despite the many difficulties and details, the conference would be held and both the government and the opposition will participate in it.
"There is no turning back, because turning back means canceling the Geneva conference and escalating the situation toward a fully- fledged war," Morhej said.
Before I end this post... I am going to link one last article. An opinion piece from John Bolton
I am not a fan of this man at all. That said, he is linked to the psychos we allow to control us because he is one of them.. He is connected. He is privy to information that you and I can only speculate on. I found this piece interesting. Tell me what you think about what Mr Bolton has written in this piece
Russia Outmaneuvers Obama Over Syria
President Obama's belated acknowledgment that Syria's regime has used chemical weapons effectively forced his decision on Thursday to arm the opposition. Whether Mr. Obama's U-turn alters the conflict's course is a different question. One thing seems certain: Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad remains unwavering. It should make for an interesting G-8 meeting on Monday and Tuesday in Northern Ireland.ht Ali at the thenakedfacts
Since Syria's civil war began, Mr. Obama has insisted, contrary to fact, that the U.S. and Russia have a common interest in resolving the crisis and stabilizing the Middle East. Secretary of State John Kerry's recent efforts to secure Russian co-sponsorship of a peace conference, at which Washington will push for Assad's ouster, reflect Mr. Obama's illusion.
The objective evidence consistently demonstrates that Russia has no interest whatever in eliminating its only remaining Arab ally. Moscow's military and financial assistance to Damascus continues undiminished, along with its hold on the Cold War-era Tartus naval base, strategically positioned on Syria's Mediterranean coast—but now facing only a phantom U.S. Sixth Fleet. Despite the hoopla surrounding the announcement of the proposed peace talks, their starting date, attendees, agenda and prospects all remain uncertain.
Most dramatically, Russia last month reaffirmed its commitment to deliver sophisticated S-300 air-defense missile systems to Assad. Although Israeli leaders have played down the sale's significance, this combination of advanced radars and missiles, which can defeat any non-stealthy aircraft (and Israel does not now have stealth planes), could change the strategic balance in Syria as well as in Lebanon and Iran—to Israel's detriment and ours.
Altering that broader strategic balance is precisely what Russia intends, exploiting President Obama's McGovernite "come home, America" policies, repeated in May when he again declared the war on terror almost over. Mr. Obama's continuing lack of interest in global threats to the U.S. is another manifestation of his inattention to defending the tenuous global stability on which the world's economy—and America's—critically rests.
Three years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pleaded with Vladimir Putin not to sell S-300 systems to Iran. Mr. Netanyahu feared that Iran's nuclear program, sheltered behind the S-300 air defenses, would be impervious to Israeli strikes. Although the U.S. could penetrate and destroy S-300s in Iran, Israel does not believe (and didn't in 2010) that Mr. Obama is serious when he says "all options are on the table" concerning Washington's possible military steps.
Perhaps responding to still-unknown Israeli commitments, Mr. Putin agreed not to send S-300 missiles to Iran, publicly citing Security Council Resolution 1929—the last substantive United Nations sanction against Tehran that Russia and China have permitted. This is more than a little ironic, since Russia had previously contended that Resolution 1929's arms sanctions did not bar sales of antiaircraft missiles, an assessment entirely shared by the Obama administration.
Because Russia's public interpretation of Resolution 1929 is clearly incorrect, the interpretation could easily be reversed, or simply ignored, should Russia so choose. Since 2010, Israel has reportedly trained against S-300s previously sold to Cyprus, but this is hardly equivalent to confronting them in combat situations wielded by skilled operators. Despite Israel's recent bluster regarding S-300s, Mr. Netanyahu reprised his pilgrimage to Moscow on May 14, this time hoping to block the Syrian sale. Mr. Putin refused.
Much, therefore, depends on how effectively Moscow trains Assad's military, or, even more chillingly, whether Russian crews will operate S-300s in Syria, which would definitely raise the stakes for NATO or Israeli attacks on the missile or radar emplacements.
There is enormous political symbolism in the S-300 deal, which is bolstered by Russian sales of antiship missiles and MiG fighters, and naval deployments to the Eastern Mediterranean. Russia's support to prevent Assad's fall is already having a considerable impact on the conflict, whatever steps Mr. Obama may now hesitatingly undertake.
The spillover prospect of using S-300s to protect Hezbollah's weapons in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley is significant both for Israel and for Hezbollah's ever-larger role in Syria's hostilities. Iran's mullahs also benefit, especially if S-300s bound for Syria find their way into Iranian hands. The ever-closer Tehran-Moscow relationship underlines the essentially negligible prospects for negotiating Iran out of its nuclear-weapons program.
While Mr. Obama sleepwalks, Mr. Putin is ardently pursuing Russia's Middle East objectives. He has always been clear about his larger goals.
In 2005, Mr. Putin told the Russian Federation Assembly that "the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the [last] century," which he clearly hoped to remedy. Mr. Putin's neo-imperialistic goals now extend globally. In Soviet days, Americans joked that Sergei Lavrov, now Russian foreign minister, was a closet royalist, but he longs less for a Romanov restoration than for a return to the czars' hegemonic achievements.
While the evidence about Russia's strategic objectives may not be conclusive, the direction is ominous. And as long as America operates on the assumption that the U.S. has common interests with Russia in Syria, Lebanon, Iran or the Middle East generally, we will see Moscow's influence rise and ours decline. Even in today's Washington, that's a scandal.
Israeli Businessman Moti Kahana Gathers Money to Support the Wahhabi(NATO) terrorists