It would be comical if it weren’t so tragic:
Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday called the situation in Aleppo “unacceptable.”
“It is beyond the pale,” Mr. Kerry said at Tufts University, before a meeting with European foreign ministers. “If people are serious about wanting a peaceful outcome to this war, then they should cease and desist bombing innocent women and children, cease cutting off water and laying siege to an entire community, and work with the international community in order to be able to bring peace to people who are starving.”
What is it that “people” need to do to make Kerry understand that they are “not serious about wanting a peaceful outcome”? That they don’t want to “bring peace”?
This game of fake ceasefires has been going on for a very long time. How many more Syrians need to die for Americans to take their heads out of their asses and acknowledge what’s happening?
There was an article in The NY TIMES this week where Jimmy Carter was saying the same crap that Kerry is. “If Russia really wants peace, it should this and that.” It’s like a boutique if collective insanity.
Clarissa's Blog 
Dreidel here…
It’s obvious that Russia’s only real interest in Syria is preserving its warm-water naval port at Tartus and its inland military air base at Khmeimim. In order to secure access to these bases, Putin needs to keep Assad in power.
There will never be peace in Syria as long as Assad remains, because the anti-Assad rebels will never made a deal with a dictator whom they consider a butcher, and in any case, Assad would never offer them acceptable terms.
Putin’s secondary goal in the Middle East is to make America look feckless and helpless. So far he’s succeeding.
Carter has always been an idealistic fool, well before he went to North Korea against President Bill Clinton’s wishes in the 1990s, and then informed the world that Kim ll-Sun (the present dictator’s grandfather) was a kind-hearted, misunderstood grandfather. Kerry, alas, is very much like Carter.
As long as Assad’s forces are under Russian protection, they’ll be no real help for Aleppo. Obama’s going to let the clock run out on his term. Hillary’s talking tough on the Russians — we’ll see how she acts if she’s elected.
LikeLike
Russia’s real goal in Syria is domestic. Putin needs a conflict with the US, he needs to show that there are military successes, that the country is a major player on the world arena. He wants his supporters at home to feel like they are back in the USSR.
To achieve these goals, Russia will bomb and invade anything and everything. Assad is just an excuse.
Right now, Putin’s goal is to get the sanctions lifted because that would be a great victory at home. He’ll sell out Assad in two minutes for that goal. But he will stoke another conflict somewhere in the region because flooding Europe with refugees is working so well for him. At home, everything he does matters at home.
LikeLike
Dreidel here…
Sure, but concerning Syria specifically, Russia also needs its only warm-water port at Tartus, and that requires a Syrian government that’s pro-Russian. Putin would certainly sell out Assad IF there were other pro-Russian forces ready to take over that government, but for the foreseeable future that’s not in the cards.
LikeLike
Speaking of tragic comedy (farce?), the representatives of France and the UK at the United Nations are now muttering about the possibly of trying Putin / Russia for “war crimes” committed in Syria. Diplomats never fail to be amusing clowns.
There’s one absolute rule in the middle-school civics-class fantasy called “international law”: You’re never guilty of war crimes as long as your side WINS!
LikeLike
The United States govt. and Israel’s also want Assad to remain in power for overlapping if not entirely the same reasons. Assad has formed a de facto and stable truce with Israel (the main and overlapping reason).
LikeLike
“What is our policy in Syria? We say: We do not intervene. We have an opinion as to what we would like to be there. But we are not in a position nor do we have the status, for sensitive reasons, to say we are in favor of Assad or against Assad.” (Now former) Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon in 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKCN0SS1KT20151103
LikeLike
Israel hasn’t been throwing Napalm bombs on Syrians, as far as I know.
LikeLike
Of course I agree. Israel’s non-nonsupport of Assad is due to rational security concerns; probable alternatives to his regime would likely be more dangerous for Israel.
LikeLike