Mass Exodus as Political Weapon: NATO thinks Putin Using the Refuge Crisis to Destroy Europe

by Nomad

A recent statement by a high ranking NATO official claims that the migrant-refugee crisis is a Russian conspiracy. The aim? To destroy the European Union.

Matthew Holehouse of the UK Telegraph reports that the Supreme Allied Commander -Europe and the head of the US European Command has a theory about what's actually happening with the refugee crisis in Europe. 

Four-star General Philip Mark Breedlove told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Putin has intentionally created this crisis in an attempt to "overwhelm" and "break" Europe.

He explained:

"Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponising migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve."

Describing fleeing migrants as a "weaponized" migration is certainly one way to make victims into the enemy though I don't believe Breedlove meant it that way. He told the Senators:

"These indiscriminate weapons used by both Bashar al-Assad, and the non-precision use of weapons by the Russian forces, I can't find any other reason for them other than to cause refugees to be on the move and make them someone else's problem.".

The Telegraph article, oddly, finds confirmation of Breedlove's remarks in the statements made by the Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko. Yakovenko said that the ceasefire in Syria involving Russian forces “will help alleviate the migration crisis in the EU.” 

A link is not an example of causation. 

Blame Game: The Truth Behind Syrian President Assad's Accusation of Western Hypocrisy

by Nomad

In an attempt to deflect his role in the death of his nation and the subsequent exodus of its people, President Assad said it was all the West's fault and it was hypocritical to cry over dead children.

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal reported on an interview with the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. During the carefully arranged interview, Assad pointed the finger of blame and hypocrisy at Western countries. These countries, he implied, have backed rebels aiming at toppling the Assad regime. 

This, he claims, is turn what has led to the flood of refugees. 

The Interview and the Numbers

Seated before a panel of very sympathetic Russian reporters, President Assad explained that the reason for the mass desertion of the population is because of terrorism.

"Actually those refugees left Syria because of the terrorism, mainly because of the terrorists and because of the killing, and second because of the results of terrorism. When you have terrorism, and you have the destruction of the infrastructure, you won’t have the basic needs of living, so many people leave because of the terrorism and because they want to earn their living somewhere in this world.

“The West is supporting terrorists since the beginning of the crisis when it said that this was a peaceful uprising. The West is crying for them."

“How can you be sad for a child that dies at sea and you are not sad for the thousands of children, elderly, men and women who died at the hands of terrorists in Syria.”

If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That’s what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.

(For the full interview click here.)

While there is no shortage of hypocrisy in this crisis, Assad's remarks certainly hit a new low in attempts to manipulate world opinion. 

The facts, however, speak for themselves.

Desolation Row: Scenes from the Syrian Civil War

by Nomad

Scenes of destruction in Syria demonstrates what national suicide looks like.

Here are some images of the devastation in the three-year Syria Civil War. In addition to this appalling destruction and the deaths of over 191,000, it has sparked one of the biggest refugee crises since WWII.

The UN has recently released a report on the Syrian Civil War. The number of dead had to be revised from an earlier UN figure. Navi Pillay, the U.N.'s top human rights official told the press:

Tragically it is probably an underestimate of the real total number of people killed during the first three years of this murderous conflict."

Arming ISIS: The Danger of Listening to Warhawks

by Nomad

Two years ago, as the Syrian Civil War dragged on, Republican war hawks had the answers about what President ought to do in Syria. Sending weapons to the freedom fighting rebels was the only answer. 

Today we can see the folly of McCain's foreign policy solutions.

Back in February 2012, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were indulging in their favorite hobby, telling President Obama what he ought to be doing in the seemingly insolvable Syrian Civil War.
Their answer was to send American weapons to the anti-Assad rebels.

McCain's Folly

“I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement,” McCain told reporters at a news conference during a visit to the Afghan capital, Kabul, “The Iranians and the Russians are providing Bashar Assad with weapons. People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves.”

“So I am not only not opposed, but I am in favor of weapons being obtained by the opposition.”

In other words, the best policy was to return to the proxy wars of the Cold War.

(Nobody on the Republican side bothered to inform the senators that arming rebels in any country is a violation of international law. The International Court of Justice has in the past ruled that such shipments violated the UN charter. The last time this matter came up was curiously enough in the Reagan era with the covert arming of the Nicaraguan contras.)

According to a Wall Street Journal article (behind a firewall), legal advisers to President Obama repeatedly warned that aiding the Syrian rebels probably "violated international law and risked a direct conflict with the Assad regime."

Furthermore, it could easily lead into a larger conflict involving Turkey, Iran, Russia, Israel and other regional neighbors. The President had every reason to proceed with extreme caution. It's the kind of thing a president- as Commander in Chief- is paid to consider.

It was clear that the Obama Administration was never fully committed to the idea of sending weapons. In any event, it made no sense to openly discuss that option. What is the benefit of publicizing such a policy? 

The then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also a little less hawkish about the idea. However according to one source, (her own recently-published memoirs) suggests that early in the country's civil war, she thought the proposal was one option.
Importantly, she adds, that view was overruled by the president.

"The risks of both action and inaction were high, [but] the president [Obama]'s inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels," she added.

"No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the president's call and I respected his deliberations and decision," she wrote, according to CBS News.

As we shall see,  Hilary's version of events was not exactly the final chapter in the whole story. Ultimately, everybody in Washington and in Europe agreed that the Syrian President Assad had to go but nobody could decide how it should be done.
For the war hawk Republicans, the most expedient way seemed to be shipping weapons into the country covertly. It had worked in other cases. After all, it worked for Reagan and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan...hadn't it?