By now everyone is aware, or should be, of the shooting down of a Russian Ilyushin 20 maritime reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of Syria, and the presumed deaths of its 15 man crew.
There are four “explanations” for what happened.
First, and immediately advanced by the Imperialist States of Amerikastan: Syrian air defence artillery shot down the plane in error while trying to shoot down “Israeli” (zionazi) missiles that were at that moment attacking a “missile factory” in the coastal city of Latakia, right next to the Russian Hmeimim air base. When it became apparent that the plane was 35 kilometres offshore, this “explanation” quietly disappeared down the memory hole.
Second, a Syrian S200 surface to air missile, aimed at the zionazi F16 jets which fired the aforementioned missiles, accidentally shot down the Russian plane. This swiftly became the Amerikastani account. We will return to this in a moment.
Third, just before the Il20 disappeared from the radar screens, its crew reported missiles being fired from a French frigate in the vicinity. The French criminal regime of the gerontophiliac Emmanuel Macron had already threatened to attack Syria, and was plainly itching for an opportunity to do so. The kind of missiles fired was not mentioned; whether they were surface to air missiles aimed at the Russian plane, or surface to surface missiles to join in the zionazi attack, or a mix of both, is unknown. Therefore these missiles may or may not have shot down the Russian plane.
Fourth, the zionazis, four of whose F16 jets were carrying out the attack, deliberately shot down the Russian plane or engineered its shooting down.
How would the zionazis engineer the Il20’s shooting down, you ask? To know the answer we need to understand what the hell the zionazis were doing there in the first place.
Ever since the terrorist invasion of Syria has started to be rolled back, with Iranian, Hezbollah, and Russian help, the zionazis have been regularly attacking targets in Syria, either from Lebanese airspace or from the sea. The Putin regime in Russia, which enjoys extraordinarily close relations with the zionazi pseudostate, has allowed this to happen with impunity, to the extent that the zionazis have recently become emboldened to bomb targets right adjacent to the Damascus Trade Fair (packed with civilians) and now Latakia, next to the Russian Hmeimim air base. And not once has the Putin regime done a thing about it.
In theory, the zionazis were supposed to warn the Russians in advance of their (totally illegal, of course) bombing attacks, so that Russian personnel could get out of the way. In this instance, according to Russian sources themselves, they stuck to that agreement and warned the Russians of the attack...a whole, humongous, sixty seconds in advance.
Sixty seconds. That’s one minute. Even if the crew of the Il20 had been informed instantly, it was far too short a time for the lumbering four engine plane to get out of the way.
The zionazi thinking, of course, was clear: what were the Russians going to do, make trouble for Putin’s incestuous relationship with Binyamin Nazinyahu? No? Then they could do what they wanted. The Russians weren’t going to shoot at them.
But what if the accursed Syrians did? What then?
In that case, well, the huge Russian reconnaissance plane, much larger than the zionazi F16s, offered a perfect shield. They would simply hide in its radar shadow, and if the Syrians fired, well, they would hit the Russians, not the zios.
If this was the plan, of course, it arouses another important question. The S 200 is an old system, dating back to 1967; it is a semi active radar guided system, which homes in on its target first by a radar beam from its launcher, and then by its own radar, carried on the missile itself. The thing is that even by the 1950s, all radars had something called Identify Friend Or Foe (IFF) which was designed to ensure that the missile did not strike a friendly target, because it would register as friendly on the launcher’s (and missile’s) radar. Since the Russians had reportedly integrated their air defence system with the Syrians, Russian IFF would work on Syrian radars, and vice versa. So it is rather difficult for me, personally, to believe that the Russian plane could been accidentally struck by a Syrian missile. But then earlier iterations of the S200 were allegedly programmed to head for the largest available target, and with the zionazi F16s sheltering in the radar shadow of the Il20, that would be the “largest target”. I’m not saying that I believe this happened for a moment (in fact I do not), but let’s admit this possibility.
In fact, that is now the official story. The zionazi F16s hid in the radar shadow of the Il20, and the S200 hit the larger plane instead. A perfectly innocent accident.
A perfectly innocent accident? Are you joking?!?
A few hours after the (hastily revised) Amerikastani claim that the Syrians had themselves shot down the Russian plane in error (something that CNN blared in its headlines right away), the Russians themselves said the same thing. I am not the only person somewhat less than satisfied with the hasty Russian acceptance of this tale.
But let’s say this was correct; let’s say the zionazis hid behind the Russian plane, which was shot down by accident. Where does this get us?
Regardless of whether Russia is lying about Syria accidentally shooting down the Il20 in order to avoid having to grow the intestinal fortitude to retaliate against the zionazi pseudostate - and I'm convinced it is - the zionazis cannot claim innocence. They are in the position of bank robbers who took a hostage to use as a human shield, who cannot claim innocence if the hostage is subsequently killed by police fire directed at them. Now imagine what the reaction would be to a police commander in that situation who absolves the bank robbers of all blame, including for the bank robbery itself.
Who did that? Why, Vladimir Putin. Even before expressing condolences to the families of the fifteen missing, presumably dead, crewmen, he was already on the phone to his dear friend Nazinyahu, to smooth ruffled feathers and ensure that things would go on as usual.
In an article I wrote in June 2017, I said this:
Our hero is a certain man, we'll call him Mr P, who lives in a large house with a front garden and a gate. Some way down the lane there lives a Mr A, who is a known Mafia criminal with a history of violent crime. Mr A has paid off the police chief, so there is no point complaining to the law about Mr A's crimes. He owns the law.
Now, Mr A covets Mr P's nice house and garden. He doesn't need either, but he covets them. Also, the fact that Mr P doesn't obey his every whim, like everyone else on the street, rankles with Mr A. And Mr P is not unaware of any of this.
One of the reasons that Mr A can get away with his crimes is that he has a gun. It is a big gun, a machine gun of 14.7mm calibre, and just about everyone else on the street is either unarmed or has only muzzle loaders. The only exception is Mr P, who happens to own a machine gun himself. Not as big as that owned by Mr A, 12.7mm rather than 14.7, but not far behind.
Now one day Mr A comes out of his house carrying his machine gun, comes up the lane, and uses it to shoot the lock off Mr P's gate. Mr P, watching from his window, does nothing. Mr A, seeing that his actions have brought no punishment, walks into the garden, trampling over Mr P's flower beds, and shoots Mr P's pet rabbits. Mr P still watches, doing nothing.
Then Mr A begins hammering on Mr P's front door, to which Mr P's response is to....pull down the shutters on his windows and shout that Mr A's activities are unacceptable and an affront to society.
What would you think of Mr P, here? Would you commend his restraint in not starting a gunfight that would shoot up the street? When Mr A breaks into his living room, isn't Mr P going to have to start that gunfight if he isn't to be robbed of hearth and home?
And what if, as soon as Mr A had emerged on to the lane, Mr P had come out of his house with his machine gun, leaned casually on his gate, and pointed the gun in A's general direction? Would or would not have A got the message?
Now, here is what I have to say, fifteen months later:
How long will the Russian people and the Russian military continue to tolerate Putin's absurd soft approach towards Amerikastani and ZioNATO aggression? How long until the military decides enough is enough, that it will no longer tolerate its soldiers and airmen being sacrificed at the altar of Putin still pretending that he's going to someday improve relations with the West? Each time Russia shows "restraint" by absorbing a slap in the face, its enemies get encouraged and slap it again. What happens when the Ukranazi regime inevitably invades Donbass? Will Putin show the same "restraint" then? How long will the Russian people and the Russian military allow this?
If you think I'm saying that there will be a coup, or a "soft coup" (foreign policy taken out of Putin's hands) in Russia if things go on like this, yes, that's what I am saying. Whether that is desirable or not is a question for the Russian people to decide.
To anyone who says that Putin's "restraint" is better than nuclear war, here is an unpleasant fact:
At the rate Putin is going he's going to be left with no option but a nuclear war.
There's an old Indian fable about a snake which terrorised people in a village. It lived in a cave in a hill near the village and everyone was terrified to come anywhere near the hill because it would bite and kill them.
Then one day a great sage who happened to be passing saw the snake, and, instead of being frightened, he told it about kindness and compassion to everyone. Overcome with remorse for its past actions, the snake promised that it would never bite anyone again. Soon afterwards, some people passing at a distance from the hill saw the snake outside its cave and instead of it attacking them it just bent its head in submission and friendship. Seeing this, the men took courage, grabbed sticks and stones, and beat the snake, leaving it for dead.
The old sage returned that way shortly after, and, finding the poor snake near death, nursed it back to health. When it was recovered, he asked it what had happened.
"You told me not to bite anyone," the snake responded. "So I approached the men in friendship, and this is what they did to me."
"Oh stupid snake," the sage replied, "I told you not to bite people. I never told you not to hiss and frighten them away!"
The usual argument of Putin apologists, and the internet is rife with them, is that Putin is “showing restraint” because otherwise he would provoke World War Three.
Rubbish. All he is doing is making Russia look absurdly weak, and emboldening Russia’s enemies, thus making WWIII more likely, not less.
Let me be very clear on what I think.
1.Russia's "restraint" isn't any such thing. It is either an admission of fear and weakness or an absurd and indefensible grovelling before the zionazi pseudostate and NATO.
2.Whatever Putinites keep repeating about the virtues of his "restraint" strengthening Russia's position, the reality is that only when he applied military force, in Chechnya in 1999, Crimea in 2014, and in Syria in 2015-18, was Russia's position "strengthened". His "restraint" as in Ukraine in 2014- today, and in Syria right now, immensely weakened Russia's strategic position.
3.Do not for a moment imagine that potential Russian allies are not watching the situation in Syria and concluding that Russian "restraint" means using its allies as disposable pawns. Russia has, for example, given away Idlib to Erdogan of Turkey,
4.Putin's "restraint" is, right now, causing colossal harm to the morale of the Russian military; his eagerness to absolve the zionazis for killing his own military's airmen is craven, disgusting, and indefensible.
5.Putin is a capitalist owned by capitalists. That he is less of a capitalist flunky than Yeltsin, by whom he was handpicked and whom he immediately gave immunity to prosecution for his endless crimes, does not make him any kind of hero. The average Russian is still struggling under him. Struggling less than under Yeltsin, but nowhere near the standard of living he/she would have had under a more equitable, even mildly socialist, system.
6. Putin's "restraint" is emboldening Russia's enemies, and allowing them to think that they can get away with anything. And they are right. At what point will Putin stop showing "restraint"? When Poroshenko, with NATO help, destroys the Donbass republics? When NATO bombs Russian forces in Kaliningrad to "protect the Baltic republics from invasion"? (Don't for a millisecond imagine they won't if they think they can get away with it.) When NATO invades Russia itself? When does "avoiding WWIII" and "showing statesmanship" turn into abject surrender?
7. Vladimir Putin has done all he could for Russia. It is time he leaves power. Whether that leaving is by a military coup or a mass uprising, it has to be done, and a nationalist government take over, if Russia is to be saved.
And, as far as Russia’s current stance in Syria is concerned, here is what I think:
An "ally" does not stand aside and watch while an enemy bombs your territory with impunity. An "ally" does not go over your head to negotiate with another enemy to occupy your territory and continue to arm, train and protect hordes of Jihadi terrorists infesting your country and holding your citizens hostage. An "ally" does not rush to reassure your enemy before even expressing condolences for its own servicemen murdered by that same enemy. Is it time for Assad to ask Russia to leave Syria? Russia has conclusively proved that unlike the Soviet Union, which stood by its allies in weather foul or fair, it only plays its own game and treats allies as pawns. For Assad, Iran is an infinitely more reliable partner.
How much Putin is off the right path is clearly seen in only one statement: after his defence minister, the far more principled Sergei Shoigu, blamed the zionazi pseudostate for the shooting down opf the Russian plane, and said it would not “remain unanswered”, the zionazi “prime minister”, Binyamin Nazinyahu, threatened to bomb Russian air defences if they dared strike back against future zionazi attacks. The response from Putin? Dead silence.
With that, here’s my cartoon for the occasion:
Right, I’m done.