It is quite natural that recently the latest instance of US aggression against Syria has been the most discussed topic in the international media.

 

 

It goes without saying that Moscow was outraged by this latest America’s aggressive step. Russian President Vladimir Putin considers the US missile strikes against a Syrian airbase “an aggression against a sovereign state carried out under a dubious pretext in violation of international law.”

 

An official representative of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Bahram Qasemi, has stated that Tehran condemns “such unilateral strikes” which “will only strengthen terrorists in Syria, while complicating the situation in this country and across the region.”

 

In the US itself, Trump’s actions caused a generally expected positive reaction. Representatives of both the Democratic and Republican parties “happily applauded” to the US President Donald Trump once he issued an order to launch missiles against the airbase near Homs, notes The Business Insider. America’s most prominent hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham welcomed the attack and urged Washington to obliterate the Syrian air force completely.

 

It is hardly a surprise for anyone that Washington’s henchmen in a number of countries across the world rushed to display their support to this aggression. Among them one can find UK Prime Minister Theresa May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, France’s President Francois Hollande, the Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull, followed by the representatives of the political elites of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

 

Yet, it looked pretty queer when the European Commission chairmen Jean-Claude Juncker and the President of the European Council Donald Tusk announced their unconditional support to an isntance of Washington’s armed aggression against a UN member state, carried out in violation of all international norms and without due process of competent authorities in establishing the true culprits behind the chemical attack in the city of Idlib. Although it would seem that these people, tasked with the preservation of the existing international law system would in the very least observe the requirements of the UN Charter!

 

Against this backdrop, the statements made by the strongest chancellorship contender from the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Martin Schulz, who urged on the Europeans to resolve the Syrian crisis by stepping up their diplomatic efforts, stands out big time. Schulz is convinced that Europeans have been relying on the United States and Russia too much, therefore, the EU should take a more responsible approach by seeking a political solution to the Syrian war.

 

The influential Politico would note:

 

In the span of one week, U.S. President Trump and his team have pirouetted from declaring that Syria’s murderous dictator could stay in power to launching airstrikes against his regime — and possibly committing the United States to a new military conflict whose scope and scale are unknown.

 

In turn, the Italian La Repubblica would argue that by ordering the strikes Trump has left the notion of America First far behind, showing that he’s more than willing to try on the suit of a new global gendarme. This position is shared by the Die Welt, that is pointing out that among the reasons that allowed Trump to gain an upper hand over Hillary Clinton was his anti-war rhetorics, by the man who pledged to make the lives of regular Americans better is nowhere to be found today.

 

In turn, the Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten remains fairly concerned over a possibility of direct military confrontation between Russia and the US in Syria, since there’s an ever increasing number of facts pointing to this.

 

The Washington Post is convinced that with the strikes, Americans were confronted with a reality they were led to believe they’d never see, with Trump using military power against a sovereign state without as much as congressional approval.

 

According to the Norwegian alternative media site Steigan blogger, the Trump administration was forced into shifting gears, coming from the notion that Bashar al-Assad is not a threat to the de facto declaration of war against Damascus. Once again we’ve witnessed a false flag attack serving as a pretext for a change of hearts, with US military contractors finally receiving what they’ve been craving for all along.

 

The New York Times argues that by launching missile strike against Syria, President Trump has got himself an opportunity to change the perception of disarray in his administration. But by doing so the US administration is increasing the number of potential threats to itself. It seems unlikely that such a limited attack could ever force Vladimir Putin into rethinking his position on Syria, which means that Russia will remain its posture in this matter. Additionally, by targeting Damascus, Trump is deviating from the primary goal that major powers are bound to pursue in the region, and that is the defeat of ISIS.

 

At the same time, the CNBS notes that by taking such a step in Syria Trump has just yanked the Russia card right out of Democrats’ hands. It argues that that’s we’re witnessing a dramatic flipping of the script in Washington, Moscow, and beyond. It’s not exactly an example of a totally negative story turning into a totally positive one for President Trump.

 

As the majority of sources note, what we’re witnessing is the rapid aggravation in the confrontation between the US and Russia. In such conditions, there could be no discussions about the possible peaceful resolve of the Syrian conflict or the near end of the Russian-American crisis. To some extent, the earlier planned visit of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow, the main purpose of which was preparation the preparation of a meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could ease the mounting tension. Yet, it’s unclear if in the present conditions such a visit could still be possible.

 

Grete Mautner

 

 

 

Tags: ; ; ; ; ;