RNA - The offensive was announced after the latest efforts to revive the already collapsed ceasefire failed. Syrian officials withdrew from the ceasefire, citing widespread violations by the United States and its “moderate” creatures, who used it to attack Syrian troops, resupply, and regroup.
Once the industrial and financial capital of the country, it is clear how valuable Aleppo really is to the Syrian Army. By some extent, it is the key to winning the war – just like Mosul is to the Iraqi Army.
Into the argument, direct and indirect dangers from the war and its blowback are so grave that the issue – helping Syrian government win this war, including the recapture of Aleppo - should be near the top of the United Nations security agenda, instead of being downplayed and denied through obstructionism.
After five years and a half, the dirty war on Syria is still the greatest threat facing the world. It will have severe and long-lasting consequences for the region and the world if America’s next president escalates the conflict. The problem is, both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump say regime change is still a top issue. When it comes to escalating the conflict, Clinton increasingly welcomes the topic, and Trump characteristically says he is fine with it, but “America’s allies will have to pay for it.”
Even today the war is wreaking havoc all across the Middle East. Pundits after pundits admit that the war has played a very clear and quantifiable role in causing the disaster that is increased terror attacks in the Global West.
In other regions, from Turkey to Greece and beyond, the devastating conflict has caused record refugee arrivals, political setbacks, and widespread social disruption. In the Mediterranean, the worst humanitarian crisis of the century continues to drown daily hundreds of desperate migrants, causing international condemnation as Europe is doing little to take in more refugees, much less stop contributing to the mass migration and the devastating conflict by supporting “moderate” Bin Laden clones.
And all this is just a start. If the United States and its client states don't end their war, the blowback increases the risk of crossing security points of no return, possibly setting in motion large-scale refugee movement changes, the loss of more civilian lives, greater terror attacks in the West, and who knows what else. What's certain is that the global consequences of exceeding such thresholds are not confined to the cycles of terror. They have lifetimes of many tens of years.
That said, it is of great concern that the two nominees for President have advocated greater US involvement in the war on Syria. Such a decision would make it far more difficult to develop effective strategies to help Syria defeat terrorism and remain as a unitary state. The consequences of opting for escalation and no-fly zones would be severe and long-lasting too – for region’s security and for the international credibility of the United States.
In sum, this is not the time to send mixed signals of obstructionism at the United Nations and markedly downplay Syria’s new push to retire the terrorist groups in the besieged city of Aleppo. On the contrary, the world community should double its support for this new military push. The world community should make no distinction between “moderate” creatures and extremist outfits either. They should help limit the extent and damage of this destructive policy before the conflict spreads further.
If anything else, America’s latest ruse that was truce proved beyond any doubt that only the Syrian government and its Iranian-Russian allies have the anti-terror ammunition to contribute to regional peace and global security. Not surprisingly, they are also the ones that can offer a chance to salvage Syria fit for safe and secure human habitation.
111/847/C