US State Department Spokesman: Bad things will happen to Russia if they don’t play ball in Syria
Yesterday, State Department Spokesman, John Kirby, during his daily briefing did a fairly good impression of a cartoon mobster – minus the endearingly affected Gotham accent – as he made tacit threats to Russia while detailing State’s passive-aggressive policy in Syria. And his comments wouldn’t be terribly alarming free if the context of his comments were something other than the US State department having effectively field-marshaled the numerous meddlesome NGOs and early insurgent stages of the Arab Spring using various jihadie groups and social media activist to destabilize Egypt and Libya. As we have all seen, this hellish play book has not been updated for the purposes of wrecking Syria, thrusting its people into an abyss of sorrows, and ultimately toppling Syria’s government, however the frustration of years of failure reaching that ultimate goal seems to have led to a series of more overt acts of violent aid to State’s various frenemies in the region, as we all saw in Deir EzZor when the US and several other coalition members coordinated air strikes for almost an hour on a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) position surrounded by ISIS troops. The strikes were carried out with US Defense intelligence and have been dismissed since by members of President Obama’s administration as a simple mistake: bad intel; so sorry. The ISIS troops armed with Saudi, US and other NATO-GCC gifted weapons timed their invasion of the SAA position with the airstrikes. 
The State Department briefing yesterday was understandably heavy,
QUESTION: So basically this is – are you issuing an ultimatum that you may engage in other than diplomatic activities?
MR KIRBY: You can characterize it how you want. I think the Secretary was very direct about what our expectations are….
The next journalist squeezed the issue,
QUESTION: …If you’re going to get any kind of agreement, you have to have some leverage, and that can be positive and negative reinforcements…. What are the consequences for Russia other than Secretary Kerry won’t talk to them on this particular issue going forward?
MR KIRBY: The consequences are that the civil war will continue in Syria, that extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft.
While Mr. Kirby is describing events with such certainty, “…which will include, no question…”, keep in mind the numerous corroborating, credible reports that the US State Department, under Secretary Clinton initially, shipped massive numbers of heavy weapons to several proxy-armies and insurgent groups in Syria, including MANPAD anti-aircraft missile launchers; keep in mind the numerous members of the US Congress who’ve called for arming the rebel jihadie groups with more anti-aircraft capabilities to shoot down Syrian and Russian aircraft exacting the suppression of Syria’s sovereign right to defend itself; keep in mind numerous members of Congress that have called for no-fly zones in Syria even if it meant war with Russia: WWIII, as many since have pointed out, just to get Assad to do their bidding – regime change or world destruction. Many of them have even stopped trying to accuse President Assad of crimes sufficient to warrant such a reckless embrace of global oblivion. Whatever desire they have to see him removed seems only tangentially to require justification. Mr. Kirby continued to describe the effects Russia should expect if they stay on their road to Damascus, 
QUESTION: …when you say that extremists will exploit the vacuum and that could include attacks on Russia’s cities and Russia could send its troops back in body bags, that also could suggest that perhaps the rebels could start sending home their troops in body bags.
MR KIRBY: It’s going to mean, again, more violence, more war, and you can expect casualties on both sides of this. But the question was what’s in it for Russia to meet its obligations under I don’t know how many different agreements, but specifically the one from September 9th in terms of seven days of reduced violence, humanitarian access. So the question posed to me was what’s in it for Russia, and that’s what’s in it for Russia...
The September 9th agreement, presumably, was for the purposes of jointly targeting the, ‘Islamic jihadists in Syria’, as the New York Times put it; an agreement that means precisely nothing if Syrian Intelligence did indeed intercept communications between ISIS fighters and the US military coordinating the air strike on Deir EzZor that killed 60 to 80 Syrian military soldiers and left more than 100 injured, again, just before ISIS fighters exploited the carnage to overrun the embattled stronghold. Back to Mr. Kirby, 
MR KIRBY: …What’s in it for them in terms of – or what happens to them if they don’t do that is that they’ll end up being, yeah, more deeply involved in this, and the war won’t stop. Opposition groups are certainly not going to pull back, extremist groups are likely going to expand and take advantage of the chaos, and the war will continue. And more Russian resources will be expended, more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down, and they – and this will go on….
The State Department, unlike so many of the Congressional warmongers that have even made ribbon breasted Generals blush; the State Department is apparently not prepared to go to war openly with either Syria or Russia, in spite of all the aid offered to the highly un-Syrian Wahabist proxy-rebel armies that are far more interested in deposing Assad than fighting either Nusra, neo-Nusra, or ISIS who they have whether by alliance or shifting memberships served alongside in the battlefield; in spite of all the direct interdictions and infrastructure destruction from the air, effectively making the US Coalition into ISIS-al-Qaeda-and-Co.’s Air Force, as so many members in the US military were afraid would happen after President Obama’s infamous ‘red line’. But, the State Department insists, contrary to all the available evidence, that they are pursuing ‘diplomatic solutions’. 
QUESTION: …Are there consequences that the Obama Administration is prepared to impose on the Russians for their failure to uphold the agreement? You can imagine economic sanctions, there could be military support to – is the Administration in principle prepared to impose its own consequences for the collapse of this agreement?
MR KIRBY: -- we have – the policy is we continue to support a diplomatic solution to this rather than a military one. But that doesn’t mean that as a government – and certainly, I can only speak for the State Department and Secretary Kerry – that we – that doesn’t mean that we aren’t still discussing other options and alternatives that might be available to us. It’s just that we continue to believe that none of them are better than trying to get a diplomatic solution to this….
When the topic of Aleppo was finally reached, at least one journalist asked a leading but telling question. They understood the paradigm of using slander and unproven accusations to start wars, and like the UN/NATO’s Libyan invasion using proxy-jihadies, they didn’t have to call it a war, a battle, or even a conflict. It was called a ‘kinetic action’ or a ‘humanitarian intervention’ or some other euphemism to by-pass epistemology, morality, and law. The same US State Department that is today struggling to run a similar operation in Syria, helped to create then systematically circumvent the UN mandate in Libya; a mandate they, with great effort from Madam Secretary Clinton, twisted for purposes President Obama admitted to almost a week before the UN mandate was ever passed. Regime change in Syria was always the goal, as it has been for over 50 years: a ‘political solution’ that involves foreign governments and unaccountable bureaucrats running Syria for their interests. But, back to Aleppo and a journalist who’s been paying enough attention to at least get the pretexts of the play, even if they’re almost advocating for the side of exporting more and more death.
QUESTION: I’m saying that when you say there are options other than diplomacy, that would suggest that you mean more robust military options, and when I say military I don’t necessarily mean bombing or troops or any of that. I’m saying, like, a more kinetic --
MR KIRBY: Again, I just don’t think it’s useful for me to talk in any more detail about the kinds of discussions that we continue to have about what our options are. We still believe that the best one is diplomacy, that the best solution is political, that what needs to happen is creating the kinds of conditions where the opposition and the regime can resume the talks that have thus far failed to get to a – to get to that political solution. And beyond that, I just don’t think it’s very prudent or responsible for me to comment.
Two bit of history seem relevant here: 1) Saudi Prince Bandar’s threat to Russia and 2) CIA’s operation Gladio B, and the two of them fit together all too well. Prince Bandar, it was revealed from leaked intel tapes, did his own impression of a mobster with Putin, tacitly threatening Russian with Chechen terror attacks during the Sochi Olympics if Putin didn’t give up the fight in Syria. Bandar, like Kirby made assurances beyond simple statements of probability, “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year…. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.” The Olympics have obviously come and gone, thankfully without Bandar’s buddies befouling the festivities, so the threat appears hollow so far, yet the project of utilizing terrorist groups to destabilize Russia, and central Asia is reportedly ongoing: a post-Cold War modified CIA plan called Gladio B. The foremost public expert on the subject, Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower, described the operation in a late 2015 interview; an operation that sounded remarkably similar to the methods used during the Arab Spring, and still today in the proxy war in Syria, 
“So that Operation Gladio turned into a different operation, the same Modus Operandi, of creating false flag events, synthetically created terror units, um as Islamic fanatic units, that would create these terror events, thus the chaos associated with it, thus the justification for NATO/CIA/US military intervention in Middle East today but with the goal of having more of these events taking us further in- into the previously Russian territories.”