This story is unavailable.

It’s unfortunate that Trump is so incoherent re Syria.

The US political establishment, both Republican and Democratic, have united behind Clinton and war with Russia. Recasting the siege of Aleppo as a “humanitarian crisis,” (as opposed to a military siege that could be resolved by the surrender of the jihadi rebels) is a way to spin the situation in such a way as to justify US intervention to enforce a permanent stalemate.

The idea that the US should “strike” Assad — a euphemism for murder, a la Qadaffi — is being leaked out and spun by the Obama administration, and is an explicit part of Clinton’s foreign policy. A strike on Assad and the Syrian government forces is, make no mistake, a strike on Russia and its vital interests.

The neo-cons who are lined up behind Clinton calculate that a definitive US intervention to kill Assad and push the Russians out of Syria will work because Russia is relatively weak. That the Russians will accept the demolition of their strategic position in the Mideast and globally rather than risk an all out war with the US.

However, Russia does have a significant stock of both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

How can the Clinton neo-cons be so sure that Russia won’t mirror the thought Robert Kennedy had during the Cuban missile crisis: “If the US is willing to go to war over Syria, the US is willing to go to war…”

Clinton’s policy re Syria assumes that the Russians are more responsible than she is.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.