Russia's partial withdrawal from Syria was more a diplomatic move than a strategic one, Bangkok-based political analyst Tony Cartalucci believes; the analyst underscores that Moscow's gesture has obviously disappointed US neocons.
"In the immediate aftermath of Russia's announcement of a partial withdrawal from Syria upon accomplishing its initial objectives, pundits, politicians, and analysts in the West attempted to capitalize on it by portraying Russia in retreat, broke economically, and attempting to avoid a quagmire it had entangled itself in," Cartalucci writes in his recent analysis for New Eastern Outlook.
The Russo-Syrian advance against Daesh has not inspired any admiration in Washington's policymakers. Quite the contrary, voices emerged claiming that Moscow is upsetting the ceasefire agreement by its military actions in Syria.
"Is Putin really offering to secure peace in Syria? Probably not. The conditions that led to Syria's death spiral into civil war have still not been addressed, and Russia's withdrawal is a facade… By resorting to the use of force, Russia will be accountable for the ceasefire's failure, and will prove itself unwilling to peacefully advance the terms it agreed to in order to secure a lasting peace," The Brookings Institution, a US neocon mouthpiece, wrote.
Surprisingly, the Institutions' report fails to make any mention of the liberation of Palmyra from Daesh days earlier by the Russian-backed Syrian Arab Army, Cartalucci remarks, calling it a "complete defiance of reality."
"Brookings analysts appear disinterested in the fact that Russia's forces are fighting ISIS [Daesh], and that many of the 'violators' of the ceasefire are openly collaborating with other listed terrorist organizations, including the al-Nusra Front," the geopolitical analyst underscores.
Indeed, the Pentagon has acknowledged publicly that it continues to train so-called Syrian rebels.
In an interview with Radio Sputnik Middle East analyst and Editor of Politics First magazine Marcus Papadopoulos stressed that the Pentagon is manipulating public opinion.
"The reality is that… the people who the Americans have been training for the last five years in Syria are not freedom fighters, they are not rebels. They are militants. They are Islamist militants. They are terrorists. These are the people who have been carrying out some of the most heinous crimes imaginable not just against Sunnis in Syria but also against Shia, Alawites, Jews and Christians," Papadopoulos emphasized.
Analyst of Middle East geopolitics Sharmine Narwani echoes Papadopoulos' stance. "The US is prepared to let al-Qaeda, [Daesh] and other terrorist groups thrive in order to keep the 'Axis of Resistance' at bay," she told Radio Sputnik.
According to Narwani, there are enough ground forces in the Syrian theatre; however, by pouring new militants into the war zone Washington's hawks want to swing the balance in their favor.
Cartalucci notes that it is hardly surprising that the Western foreign policy establishment and its subservient media sources are trying "to frame the Syrian crisis as everyone's fault but their own." To make matters even worse, they are not going to abandon their Middle Eastern strategy.
Unlike the US and its NATO allies, Russia is the legitimate military actor in Syria along with the Syrian Arab Army: it is acting in accordance with the official request from the Syrian democratically-elected government.
Russia is acting in a "measured, prudent and proportional manner, respecting the principles of the multipolar world," and the supremacy of national sovereignty.