The final battle for Idlib: Putin bashing for war crimes
Mainstream media and the editor-in-chief of the Münchner Merkur, South Germany´s most influential newspaper Georg Anastasiadis now want to hold Putin and Assad responsible for all refugee waves and war crimes in Syria. As much as one should reject this massacre from a humanist point of view and also criticize Putin and Assad, the extreme one-sidedness of the reporting is striking, which embezzles and wants to conceal one’s own responsibility and imperialist interests in the Greater Middle East. The fact that Russia and Assad want to conquer Idlib is as logical as the United States has freed Fallujah from Sunni Islamist militias or Mosul from the Islamic State. Counterjihad at its best! And the Russians and Assad do no differently than the United States and its allies, and no consideration is given to civilians or human shields from hospitals to kindergartens. War crimes yes, but equally clear double standards and there is no need to ask: why?
Or forget the shock and awe campaign of the United States‘ war of aggression in 2003, which opened the whole box of the pandora of civil wars and refugee flows alongside NATO’s intervention to overthrow Ghaddafi in Libya or the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni genocidal war, which also doesn’t care about civilians and that Assad and Russia have offered the Islamist homicide militias supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia free withdrawal from Idlib and that they could simply move to the Turkish-occupied zone and calm down for once is not mentioned. But that is not what the Islamists and Erdogan want, who are still dreaming of a Neo-Ottoman Empire throughout MENA and not just Syria.
As the Turkish economy is weakened and could be collapsing, Erdogan is pushing for foreign adventures for the establishment of his neo-Ottomanian empire. He visits Tunesia in order to prepare a Muslim brotherhood take over in Tunesia with Ennaddah Muslim brother Ghanouchi with whom he in 1979 together visited Hekmatyar in Afghanistan, a strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria, be it by no-fly zones, ceasefires, support of the UNO or sending own troops and warships as proclaimed. The best the West could do is support secular despots like Assad, General Al Sissi and General Haftar or anti-Islamist forces as they would be a counter jihadist secular counterweight against Islamism. They won´t be anti-Western or pro-Putin if the USA and the EU would support them, but as the West relies on human rights, value-based policy and multicultural support for Islamists as the Libyan Tripolis government or NATO partner Erdogan , it is doomed to fail.
The chief editor of the Münchner Merkur Anastasiadis, like most mainstream media, is so one-sided that it also ignores the responsibility of the West and Germany in the Syrian war. In 2012, the Foundation for Science and Politics (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik/SWP) held a conference of the Syrian exile opposition in Berlin, which was financed by the German and US foreign ministeries to establish a post-war order for Syria. Significantly, there were not so many secular-democratic forces represented, but the other half Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist homicide militias, which Turkey and Saudi Arabia equipped to dismantle Syria to rubble and ashes. And the West is ignoring the fact that Putin´s intervention on the side of Assad prevented that the Islamic State seized power in Syria and expand its Califate.
The plan „The Day After“, which had been decided on, had meanwhile been removed from the SWP’s website in order to disguise the genocidal intervention policy of the USA and Germany in Syria on the part of the Islamists. And where is the criticism of NATO partner Turkey, who has equipped all Islamist homicide militias against Assad, is largely responsible for the flow of refugees before Putin intervened. wants to establish a neo-Ottoman empire and now also wants to send troops and warships to Libya. This one-sidedness of reporting is exactly what people now hate about the supposedly serious quality journalism, mainstream media and Putin-bashers.
However, the question is what Putin wants to gain from Erdogan. On the one side, a NATO exit, would be the best option for Putin after Macron´s brain-death proclamations to get a new space for a multipolar world. Could Erdogan and Putin agree on reliable spheres of influence in the Greater Middle East, let Turkey become a member of the SCO and the New Silkroad and freeze his neo-Ottomanian ambitions, become Eurasia? Or would Erdogan become a troublemaker in the SCO as he is already in NATO and fuel neo-Ottomanian ambitions of the Muslims in Central Asia and Xinjiang/East Turkestan? Would he be satisfied? Or could the West make an alliance with Russia, General Haftar, Assad, General Al Sissi and anti-Islamist forces in the Greater Middle East and a New East Policy, maybe together with India?