The big Syria bluff & Trump’s Hong Kong Phooey chop: all fat – definitely no meat

Let’s spell this out so that it is absolutely clear. If the USA and its minions stage a major attack on Syria, it risks the very high probability – it’s almost certain – of a regional defeat in the Middle East, which will be so decisive that the American appetite for war will be slaked like it was after Vietnam (and the infamous evacuation helicopter episode). This is why all of the Trump regime’s efforts, ever since it came into office, have been concentrated on blackmailing and guilting the Russians to stand aside in Syria.

We don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know this, or a soothsayer; we don’t even have to set ourselves up as a great alternative media geopolitical guru on the internet (please send us money). It is all in the data for anyone to see.

Take yesterday evening (or night time by then), for instance, when the Times published a piece informing of a British reluctance to assist an US assault on Assad’s government (the following  is what is available to see outside of the paywall):

Theresa May told President Trump yesterday that Britain would need more evidence of a suspected chemical attack by the Assad regime before joining a military strike against Syria.

The prime minister rejected a swift retaliation as inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) prepared to visit the Damascus suburb where at least 40 people were reported to have been killed by chlorine gas on Saturday.

Mr Trump had promised on Monday that he would decide the US response within 48 hours. As that deadline approached, it appeared that he too was drawing back from an imminent strike. The US president cancelled weekend travel plans amid reports that Russian and Iranian involvement in Syria had complicated White House calculations about the response…

The main issue of the article appears, superficially, to be about (sudden) British concern for due process. But this is cover for US weakness. As it trailed off, the article was about to get into real reason for the procrastination beyond Trump’s 48 hour deadline, which is the consequences of embroiling Russia, and US anxiety regarding it†. We can see manifestations of this distress by studying consecutive tweets‡ issued by Hong Kong Phooey (i.e. Trump; see here for an explanation) on Wednesday morning, US time:

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

(Source).

Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?

(Source).

The first thing to say is that the hypothesis maintained at FBEL is confirmed yet again: these two tweets represent a stick and carrot for Russian compliance vis-a-vis US plans for Syria. Note the attempt to guilt Russia about its support for a “Gas Killing Animal”. Moscow is bound to be way too sophisticated for this stuff, and American citizens should feel highly embarrassed that they continue to let an apparent moron sit as their president (will they ever remember that they own firearms for the express purpose of overthrowing bad government). Indeed, these tweets really are verging on being too stupid to comment upon (the first one is especially infantile); however, getting to the point by which they were introduced, there is an overt reference to the prospect of US military losses. This has to be understood by the White House as a certainty. The second tweet ends with a pleading to Russia which comes from the knowledge that her military is currently light years ahead of the USA (see the FBEL article The Ghouta chlorine incidents – and Putin’s timely state of the nation address?). And ultimately, both tweets call on Russia to stop being an opponent – which, when it all boils down to it, is all that the Trump regime can do in terms of a head-on confrontation.

More evidence of the campaign to alienate Russia came from Tuesday’s UNSC meeting which, unlike the ones held on Monday this week (as far as it could be understood – see previous FBEL article, which is, in fact, a prequel to this one), attempted to come to a point about Syria.

Both Russia and the USA proposed the establishment of a body dedicated to investigating the regular provocations in Syria using chemical weapons (supposedly). Each side vetoed the other’s proposal. The Guardian takes up the telling of the tale as is pertinent for our purposes:

Russia vetoed a US resolution creating a new independent investigative mechanism for chemical weapons attacks in Syria, arguing that it would become a propaganda tool of the west.

The Russian envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, said the resolution had been designed to fail. “They hope the decision will not pass,” Nebenzai told the council chamber. “This is what they want … in order to justify the use of force against Syria.

“If you take the decision to carry out an illegal military adventure – and we do hope that you will come to your senses – then you will have to bear responsibility for it yourselves.”

The thing to notice here is that the USA is not proposing that the UN should sanction military action. It is asking for access to Syria. This request obviously comes with a threat of the use of force if it is not granted. Nebenzia told the Americans to go play on the freeway, showing that Russia is not perturbed by the prospect of a US assault. This is significant in itself.

However, Nebenzia would not be correct in his statement about US motive – which could be a version of Russian opinion for public consumption. If the Russians won’t move out of Syria, the next best thing for the Americans would be access to the ground through NGO intelligence-fronts to set up strongholds which will, thereafter, be difficult for the Syrians to evict. These zones would serve as centres of operations to continue destabilising the country. Clearly, all the talk of war on Syria had been bluff to have Russia relent to certain US demands.

Now, something that the scruffy ignoramus Karen Pierce, the UK ambassador to the UN, said after the UNSC session points the way to how the USA will proceed – again, it ain’t war.

Russia’s credibility as a member of the council is now in question… We will not stand idly by and watch Russia continue to undermine global norms which have ensured all our security, including Russia’s, for decades. As a [permanent council] member, the United Kingdom will stand up for international peace and security. It is our moral duty.

Expect an effort to have Russia ejected from the UNSC. Presumably, the object is to create an environment where the USA isn’t vetoed on Syrian issues, so that the circumstances can be engineered whereby Russian resistance to US efforts to enter Syria will be portrayed as opposing the will of the international community; ultimately, it is an extension of the plan to alienate Russia to force compliance. In fact, the way that Russia is being treated is fundamentally Alinskyesque in its contrivance; there should be no surprise that the Anglo-globalist Luciferians would be employing such a strategy.

Returning, now, via  Karen Pierce – who, on Monday, actually welcomed it when the Syrians and Russians extended the invite – to the matter of the OPCW visit to Douma, and pretty much to where we started in this article; a pertinent question to ask might be this: will an OPCW investigation be meddled with in order to incriminate Russia in any way? The answer has to be no – the OPCW will probably discover nothing to report when it gets to Douma (see previous FBEL article), but that doesn’t matter. As mentioned above, the visit is being used by the Anglo-globalists to stall and disguise impotenceǂ. The corporate-media in the west will just ignore the fact-finding mission, and its audience will remain ignorant and saturated with the sort of Establishment-induced idiocy that one routinely witnesses being gobbed-off on Twitter.

Speaking of Twitter, on Tuesday night it was also clearly the scene of a psyop that was intended to give the impression of an imminent US attack on Syria. There were stories about Assad fleeing Damascus, and about commercial jets being ordered to avoid Syrian airspace, and about squadrons of US aircraft flying on the Syrian-Iraqi border. Moreover, it was only the Daily Mail amongst all of the other corporate-media in the UK that picked up on the Times story about the British requiring proof of Assad’s guilt – which was quite unusual, given that the Times often leads with talking points. Indeed, if one searches for “Theresa May Syria” on Google, the UK corporate-media is still, at the time of writing, largely avoiding the news that the US/UK government has blinked in a staring contest, and at the prospect of having the illusion of its invincibility shattered by the Russians. And so, we must conclude that, with the Times article serving as signaling to a particular audience, there is an effort in corporate-media (which is an expression of US/UK intelligence capabilities), despite the clear admission of an Anglo-globalist back down, to maintain the general anticipation of a military conflict – which would be essential for the psyop mentioned above. It is an effort, by the way, that has been aided by most of the so-called alternative media.

† The US anxiety about engaging Russia was also written of yesterday (10th April) at the LA Times in a piece entitled As Trump considers military action on Syria, Pentagon worries it could put Russian soldiers in the crosshairs

‡ There is an issue at to whether or not Trump writes his own tweets (the author doubts that he can spell); in the end it matters not. Any twitter account is a face that is presented to the public, and it represents the individual whose is named as the owner.

ǂ And UK keenness might have something to do with the British rumoured to have been captured in Douma.