“We are hoping for this. Yes, indeed,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov. We need to force these (US-backed) terrorists out the same way as they need to be forced out of Mosul and Raqqa. It’s a common task.”
Eastern Aleppo is being liberated one neighborhood at a time, thousands of trapped residents held as human hostages already freed, numbers growing daily – hundreds of US-backed terrorists surrendering or retreating.
In the last 72 hours, Syrian and allied forces routed terrorists in 16 districts, capturing northern parts of eastern Aleppo. According to a Syrian military source, government and allied troops began an offensive to liberate southern portions of the city.
They control over half of eastern Aleppo territory, US-supported terrorists clearly on the back foot, losing to government and allied forces decisively.
Syrian terrorist leaders are in talks with Russian representatives to end fighting in Aleppo, Turkey brokering them in Ankara.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova isn’t denying them, saying “Washington isolated itself. We’ve been negotiating with opposition (elements) in Turkey for years. It’s not news.”
Moscow is adamant in demanding all terrorists cease fighting and leave eastern Aleppo – or they’ll be forcibly driven out.
So far, they’re unwilling to relinquish remaining parts of the city they hold. Liberating it and surrounding areas is key to defeating Washington’s regime change scheme.
Fighting will likely continue until they’re routed from all parts of the city, achievable possibly within weeks – why Washington is desperate to halt fighting. Russia and Syria aren’t buying it.
Separately, on December 1, the General Assembly adopted a resolution it overwhelmingly approved numerous times before, demanding Israel withdraw from Syrian Golan – restoring pre-June 1967 borders.
General Assembly members condemned Israel’s failure to observe Security Council Resolution 497 (1981), declaring its occupation “null and void and without international legal effect.”
Golan remains illegally occupied for nearly half a century, officially recognized as sovereign Syrian territory.
Russia’s Foreign Policy Compared to America’s
Both countries have polar opposite agendas. Obama isn’t remotely close to Putin in stature, integrity and high-mindedness.
On December 1, Putin approved Russia’s new concept of foreign policy. It calls for “enhancing international security, stability at the strategic and regional levels.”
It urges strict “implementation of the Russia-US Treaty for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of April 8, 2010.”
It reiterates “readiness to discuss issues of further phased reduction of nuclear potentials based on the growing topicality of giving this process a multilateral character with due account of factors influencing strategic stability.”
It supports establishing a zone free from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, especially in the Middle East.
It seeks broad international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, free from politicization and double standards, in strict conformity with international law.
“Russia believes that predictable and gradual development of dialogue with the US on bilateral relations and the global agenda is only possible if based upon the principle of equality, mutual respect of interests and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.”
“Moscow does not accept Washington’s attempts to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction that violate international law, and is adamant to resist any military, political or economic pressure reserving the right to strictly respond to unfriendly actions particularly by strengthening national defense and taking tit-for-tat as well as asymmetrical measures.”
In his annual State of the Nation address, responsible foreign policy principles he outlined contrast markedly with America’s imperial agenda, under Obama and earlier US administrations.
Putin seeks world peace, stability, and mutual cooperation among all nations, so far unattained -expressing concern over “intensifying political, social and economic contradictions,” along with the risk of increased “force in international relations.”
Believing chances for large-scale conflict, including a nuclear one, remain low, regional wars continue raging, despite Russia’s good faith efforts to resolve things, notably in Syria and Ukraine.
America under Obama and past presidents continues waging endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. Peace and stability are anathema to its imperial agenda. It remains to be seen if Trump breaks from tradition or continues dirty business as usual.
“Russia is ready to cooperate with (his) administration,” Putin stressed. “It is important to normalize and develop bilateral relations on an equal and mutually beneficial basis.”
“Cooperation between Russia and the United States in addressing global and regional issues is in the interest of the whole world. We share responsibility for ensuring international security and stability.”
Putin is “committed to the friendly, equal dialogue, to upholding the principles of justice and mutual respect in international affairs.”
He’s “ready (for) serious conversation on building a stable system of international relations of the 21st century. Unfortunately, in this context, the decades that passed after the end of the Cold War were lost in vain,” he explained.
His geopolitical agenda benefits everyone. Washington’s rage for war is humanity’s greatest threat.
Will Trump normalize ties with Russia as pledged? Will he be a peace and stability leader or a warrior one like his predecessors. We’ll know once he begins governing.
If past is prologue, hope for turning a page responsibly may be wishful thinking. We won’t know either way until a changing of the guard in January.