First things first: by now, anyone with a tiny bit of brain, honesty, and knowledge, should be 100% sure of the fact that ISIS is a US creation and that, when John Kerry mentioned the need for a Plan B, he was not joking.
Let's talk about Plan B and Plan A. Let's also talk about the confusing Plan C being implemented right now. But please, first watch this time-lapse of the Syrian conflict, so it will be easier for you to understand everything:
To have a Plan B, you first needed to have had a Plan A: to flood Syria with terrorist groups made of international mercenaries paid by the West and the Gulf states... and "rebel" terrorist groups made of international mercenaries paid by the West and the Gulf states. It didn't work, as we know.
A Plan B was necessary if US Empire wanted to finish its terrorist-colonial plan for Syria: to remove Assad and transform a secular multi-ethnic multi-confessional Syria into a myriad of ethnically homogenous and failed puppet states where chaos, misery, torture, and rape would become normal and where genocidal psychopaths would reign in total impunity, as long as the stolen gas and oil would keep flowing to the hands of Imperial West.
So Plan B was about ordering ISIS to commit genocides of Kurdish in Eastern Syria and publicize it. The genocides of Assyrians, Chaldeans, and others, at the hands of the Kurdish invaders (Iraqi Kurdish and Turkish Kurdish), were all Orwellianly removed from the books yet to write in the petty Western world.
No longer able to sell direct invasions, the US and its client states tried and failed the proxy war scheme against Syria, with FSA and all its 50 shades of terror: Plan A.
Plan B was about willingly creating Kurdish massacres at the hands of ISIS, rename Syrian Arab cities with made up Kurdish names (Ayn al-Arab shamefully became Kobanî, etc.), flood western lying media with those massacres and then, finally, play the "humanitarian card".
By humanitarian card I mean: "No, we the West are not coming to invade, colonialize and plunder Syria, we are coming to liberate the Kurdish from the terror imposed by ISIS.
And so they did, and the western populace swallowed it. And ignorant Western populace assimilated the absurd concept of a Kurdish state built in stolen Syrian land with less ethnic Kurdish than Germany, for instance!
Terror states like the US, the UK, and France occupied all the Syrian territory on the east side of Euphrates River, where historically there are no Kurdish populations, with the exception for 2 strips of cities and towns near the Turkish border. All the rest, southwards, is desert filled with gas and oil to be stolen, plenty of ethnic groups to be wiped out by the Kurdish "good guys" and cities like Raqqa to be bombed back to the Stone Age by the "civilized" French, British and North Americans.
If you're still wondering about how fake the SDF are and how much your mainstream media brainwash you about the Kurdish "poor victims" in Eastern Syrian, watch this insanely honest 2 minutes video:
(Full speech here.)
There are incredibly easy ways to disprove all the western claims about the US (and its client states) being the ones fighting ISIS. And there are incredibly easy ways to prove ISIS is clearly a US construct and a US tool of imperial bellicose chess.
FIRST, how to explain ISIS was able to peacefully stay years in the very same pocket, surrounded by Israel (actually, Syrian Golan Heights occupied by Israel), Jordan (US vassal state) and FSA-held part of Syria, and then, when the brave Syrian Arab Army cleaned FSA terror from that area, in 2018, a few weeks later, the ISIS pocket was also wiped out?
Syrians, supported by Hezbollah and Iran and Russia, did in a few weeks what USA and Israel and NATO and West-sponsored FSA couldn't or didn't want to do. Look:
SECOND, why, on 17 September 2016, U.S.-led Coalition delivered 37 airstrikes over the city of Deir-ez-Zor, in eastern Syria, killing between 90 and 106 Syrian Army soldiers and wounding more than 110, destroying a big part of the airport and military base infrastructure and destroying scores of military equipment (including Syrian airplanes)?
Why did the US bomb Deir-ez-Zor in synchrony with ISIS advances on the ground against an ISIS-sieged Syrian city? The USA had asked Russian permission to "bomb ISIS positions" several kilometers south from that city but, somehow, US super-hyper-technological war machine, with plenty of fancy high tech, missed the target not by several meters, but by several kilometers? And while the US kept missing their target (from 3:55 p.m. to 4:56 p.m., Damascus time), the USA-Russian communication channels were all coincidentally off, so Russian authorities had no way to inform the primitive US Air Force that they were missing their target with an error of several kilometers and that, "oops", they were hitting the only Syrian-held city in an ISIS ocean.
THIRD, compare the Syrian/Russian advances against ISIS, with the NATO/SDF "advances" against the same ISIS, from May 2017 to September 2017:
While SDF and NATO were completely frozen, SAA and its allies reconquered dozens of thousands of square kilometers. And NATO (USA) was Ok with it. Peacefully living side by side with ISIS was positive for the Empire, as long as ISIS would continue to attack SAA and destroy Syrian infrastructure and steal Syrian oil.
FOURTH, SDF-NATO prevented SAA from entering Raqqa, and sieged Raqqa, and totally destroyed Raqqa. SDF-NATO sieged Raqqa not to free the city, no. SDF-NATO sieged Raqqa to steal it, to steal it on time, to steal it from the victorious Syrian Arab Army (SAA) steadily marching towards Raqqa. And after the sieged, French Terror Army, British Terror Army and USA Terror Army had immense fun bombing Raqqa back to the Stone Age.
FIFTH, SDF-NATO invaders usually hibernating, woke up again when the SAA ended with the horrific 3 years siege of Deir-ez-Zor. With SAA in full control of this city and expanding its presence along the western side of the Euphrates River, USA invaders needed to act. For the US (SDF-NATO), having ISIS controlling the oil-rich southern triangle on the eastern side of the same river was no longer a good chess move.
So, on 10 September 2017, USA (SDF-NATO) advanced 65 km in less than 12 hours, officially taking control of the oil-rich Syrian land with no resistance from ISIS. No resistance, no fight, no casualties. Wonderful. In less than 12 hours US Empire managed to peacefully swap black to yellow flags. And the silly ignorant western world bought it.
Syrians and allies removed ISIS from dozens of thousands of square kilometers in a few months, suffering heavy losses.
Frozen SDF-NATO managed to advance 65km in 12 hours with no resistance from ISIS fighters and suffering zero casualties.
And then what? Then, since November 2017, until today, ISIS is still in control of a bunch of small towns and villages on the eastern side of the Euphrates River! How comes?
Syrians and allies can't finish the job because the US does not let them cross the river. The US has criminally destroyed all bridges over the Euphrates, on purpose. And, bully US shot down Syrian aircrafts every time Syrians lawfully tried to fight ISIS on the eastern side of the river, also Syrian territory.
So what? Only the US Empire is allowed to "fight" ISIS on the eastern side of the river. But they don't. No, they surely don't!
The awkward and absurd truth is: from November 2017, until today; during 13 months, the biggest and mightiest war machine ever created in the whole history of humankind was not able to defeat a bunch of ISIS members living in a bunch of sieged villages! And you ignorant US citizens, you buy it. And you "well informed" Europeans, you buy it too.
In the West, in the Orwellian West, just like in the novel 1984, "white is black, war is peace and the US fights ISIS".
Here is a map of the tiny bit of land where the bunch of ISIS members I mentioned above lives:
From all possible variations of outcomes related to the US withdrawal and the possibly coming Turkish invasion of eastern Syrian, 3 main potential scenarios can be highlighted:
FIRST SCENARIO, US pragmatically gives up its project in eastern Syria: to create a fake Kurdistan in the backside of Syria, acting as an Israel 2.0. The US gives up because the project is now landlocked. Iraq defeated ISIS in its own territory; Iraq dismantled last year the Kurdish-Iraqi part of that Israel 2.0; Syria won the war the West inflicted on it; Hezbollah is stronger than ever and rules in Lebanon; a strong and experienced resistance against US-Israel imperialism stretches now from Lebanon to Iran; Etc.
Pointless for the US to insist on this failed neocolonial crime. Better for the US to make a secret deal with Russia, so the Americans can move out and let Turkish do whatever they wish. Whatever Turkish do, will damage their image, not US image. Yes, it "damages" the image westerns have about Trump because silly westerns prefer to see it that way. Whatever.
This secret USA-Russia deal would always be dependent on the success of a second secret deal between Russia and Turkey.
Hopefully, Turkey moves in, playing a hyper-Machiavellic double game. After having been a major - even prime - agent of the proxy war against Syria, now Turkey would be indirectly playing for Russian side if, indeed, they made, with Russia, a secret agreement like the one I am supposing.
I mean, in the best-case scenario for Syria, Turkey would play its present role of FSA supporter (I'm thinking about Idlib and Afrin), by threatening to extend FSA control to all the area now controlled by SDF-NATO.
Because Turkey (NATO member, after all) can fight and crush Kurdish equipped with brand new modern NATO weaponry without triggering a large scale conflict. Yes, they can. And Because Syria and Russia cannot.
FIRST a) - Turkey can play this game and, somehow, later, find a way to do what, in that first scenario, has possibly already been secretly promised to Russia (therefore to Syria). And the promise I am talking would be: to politically and diplomatically give eastern Syria back to Syrians, somewhen in the second part of 2019.
FIRST b) - Even easier. Turkey threatening to invade eastern Syria currently occupied by SDF-NATO, plus the US withdrawing from there, could be more than enough for Syrians to force Kurdish to stop with their silly independentist games and sit to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic settlement that can only have one outcome: Kurdish individuals with Syrian nationality completely dropping their weapons; Kurdish individuals not citizens of Syria leaving the country; Syrian government fully regaining control of its eastern provinces.
In this scenario, if the Kurdish refuse to negotiate, the chances to win a military confrontation with the experienced SAA (and allies) will be very low. Kurdish will have to face a Turkish front in the north and a Syrian front along the Euphrates River. Sure they have been supplied with hundreds of NATO trucks filled with light and heavy weaponry, but to have it and to use it is not at all the same. Moreover, they will no longer have NATO support, meaning they do not have real valuable intelligence nor an air force supporting them. Syria has its own and it has the support of the Russian air force.
Going back to Turkey, a good reason for this country to play this first scenario would be the need to build the Turkish Stream, a multi-billionaire project they have with Russia to bring Russian gas to Europe using pipeline built under Turkish soil. And don't forget the critical situation of the Turkish economy. And do not forget the US sabotage, trying to make the Turkish economic crises even worst.
A good reason to believe Turkey under Erdogan's regime would respect this project is the fact that Erdogan insists on buying the Russian S-400 missile system.
SECOND SCENARIO: the Turkish regime could be secretly promising to help Russians (therefore Syrians) recovering the eastern provinces; the Turkish regime could be secretly promising to help the US to create a kind of Sunistan in the eastern provinces (read THIRD SCENARIO); and, actually, Turkey would be fooling both sides.
Erdogan's regime could be simply preparing to act as a Neo-Ottoman Empire, planning to invade the eastern Syrian provinces (now controlled by the SDF-NATO) after the US withdrawal and stay there, indefinitely, colonizing it.
There are known disturbing facts supporting this theory. I will enumerate several of them. In the Afrin and al-Bab areas of northern Syria currently and illegally occupied by the Turkish Army (together with FSA terrorist groups), Turkey:
- Installed a Turkish telecommunication network;
- Is printing and delivering Turkish-FSA ID cards for the people living there;
- Is installing Turkish schools with a Turkish education system;
- Is buying people's mind with the "modern" Turkish lifestyle;
- Is brainwashing native Syrian Turkmens to be loyal to Turkey instead of Syria;
- Brought Turkmens, Uighurs and terrorists from other Turkic ethnic groups to colonialize northern Syria;
- There are Turkish flags and portraits of Erdogan all over Afrin and al-Bab.
THIRD SCENARIO: Turkey would be again playing a double game, betraying Russia and siding again with the US master.
After having been a prime aggressor since the very beginning of the Syrian "civil" war, fighting for its own selfish interests and for US interests, Turkey is now commonly believed to have changed sides. Even with tons of contradictions coming from this country, the fact that Turkey now often meets with Iranian and Russian officials makes many of us believe they did change side.
But what if Turkey would be playing double games again? What if Turkey pretends to be willing to take part in a political and military process to end with the war on Syria when, in truth, Turkey would actually be the prime agent of an American Plan C for Syria? A Plan C focused on the creation of an ISIS Sunistan or an FSA Sunistan in the areas now controlled by SDF-NATO?
Absurd? Not that much. Do you remember Iraq 2014? Do you remember the USA "moving out of Iraq"? Do you remember the sudden rise of ISIS and affiliates in northern Iraq? And how easily they seized US weapons left behind "for the new Iraqi forces"? And having seized those weapons, how fast did they control a big part of Iraq and Syria? And all the talks about a Sunistan; the implementation of that Western concept: mono-ethnic or mono-religious states as a way to better divide and better reign? And the plans to divide Iraq in order to isolate the pro-Iran Shias from the rest of the country?
Well, unfortunately, why not again?
Those paying real attention to this aggression on Syria should have noticed the fast pace NATO has been delivering light and heavy weaponry to the SDF, this year, in occupied eastern Syria. A big part of the trucks entering SDF-held areas coming from Turkey. What a contradiction, no?
Turkey meeting with Russia and Iran. Turkey about to buy S-400's. Turkey threatening to invade northern Syria and attack Kurds. Yet, a big percentage of NATO military gifts to Kurds come from Turkey? How come?
What if all those trucks are bringing the weapons for a US-designed future Sunistan with the secret consent of Turkey?
This Sunistan could be done in 2 different fashions.
THIRD a) If everything goes right with the potentially upcoming FSA-Turkish invasion of eastern Syria (and, in the USA or in Turkey, who cares about Kurds, after all?), FSA-Turkish occupiers would establish an FSA Sunistan following US orders. Mono-religious, ruled by invaders (Turks, Turkmens, Uighurs, etc.), this FSA Sunistan would have the advantage (for Americans) of not being a landlocked project (thanks to Turkey).
THIRD b) And what if, with NATO Withdrawing from eastern Syria and "abandoning" SDF, its Kurdish mercenaries join forces with the ISIS members currently present in the area and with the ISIS members currently in SDF jails? In that case, all the weaponry recently brought by the USA to be "abandoned", would actually be US gifts for the ISIS Sunistan about to be created?
Turkey could "lose" potential confrontations with this new ISIS or, easier, could simply cancel the invasion of eastern Syria, letting the neo-ISIS install their ISIS Sunistan without interfering or, better (worst), provide them with extra FSA mercenaries. After all, all these fundamentalist mercenaries easily move back and forward from al-Nusra to ISIS, from ISIS back to FSA, and so on, as this video clearly proves:
This THIRD b) scenario would be probably quite easy for the US Empire to implement (all the personal and equipment required is already in place), but it would be also the weakest version of a possible US-sponsored Sunistan. With Turkey pretending to be defeated by ISIS Sunistan or simply not interfering, and therefore continuing to pretend to be siding with Russia, this ISIS Sunistan could not receive direct support from Erdogan's regime and it would be a landlocked project.
Furthermore, without the (official) presence of NATO forces inside ISIS Sunistan, Syria and Russia could attack it and reconquer that eastern part of Syrian without fearing a reaction from NATO, which could easily lead us to a global conflict. Bad for the US and its Plan C, good for Syria.
In conclusion: with this scenario of the US implementing a new ISIS as part of Plan C for Syria, Syria could also fully regain control of its eastern provinces. But Syria would have to suffer further destruction and death. In the FIRST SCENARIO, Syria would also regain full control of its land, but with no more confrontation.
THIRD c) If the situation imagined on scenario THIRD b) is true, the very reasons behind it could actually be others, and so I would add a scenario named THIRD c).
In this last possible explanation for the Turkish unpredictable and apparently illogical behavior, I go as far as wondering if Turkey could not be playing a triple game. Turkey could be pretending to be pretending to (lately) be siding with Russia on their weird partnership of demilitarized zones and check-points around Idlib. Consequently, Turkey could be now pretending to support US and its Plan C to implement a Sunistan in Syria. But actually, Turkey would be simply creating the necessary conditions for Syrians and Russians to be able to fully reconquer the Syrian territory.
In the THIRD b) Turkey would be the enemy, in THIRD c) would be a hidden ally, but the outcome would be the very same: the creation of geopolitical conditions to allow SAA, Hezbollah, Iranians, and Russians to cross the Euphrates River without triggering a conflict between Russia and USA, i.e., a WW3.
Yes, I insist, like in the FIRST SCENARIO, Syrian would be fully liberated, but not peacefully like in that scenario.
Thank you for reading this article.
I leave you with the absurd Kurdish incoherence exposed in 2 images:
Luís Garcia, Rayong, Thailand