so, what's going on in syria right now?

actually, yes: you do need to know. people have been talking about world war three since the americans invaded iraq. it's starting to get pretty serious. and, hey, there's a foreign policy election debate tonight, too - but don't expect any useful analysis out of it.

so, it was a few years ago now that the americans staged a chemical attack and then tried to blame it on syria. that might sound conspiratorial, and if your only source of news is cnn that's understandable, but my source on that claim is actually the united nations. that's legit, and understood by the various world powers. understanding that the united states faked a chemical attack to start a war is fundamental in realizing exactly what's happening. it's one thing to do something like that; the fact is that the americans have a long history of false flags to start wars - and that's according to history, not according to youtube. it's another thing to do something like that, get caught and have the whole world know you did it. how trustworthy are you after that? and, if it fits into a pattern of deception over many years or decades?

the united states has become a rogue state.

it's not clear what the russians said to the americans, or why the british of all people took the initiative to throw a wrench into it, but it didn't happen.

instead of bombing syria, they created a mess in ukraine by funding a coup, which set off a civil war. the purpose of this was to punish the russians for interfering in syria. then, when the russians reacted (like they were supposed to), sanctions were placed on russia that prevents them from economic relations with countries that use the united states dollar. the purpose of these sanctions is to collapse the russian economy in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution in russia that american agents can take control of in seizing power. that's not alex jones, either. that's the official policy on the state department's website.

it took the russians some time to come to terms with what is actually happening, but they have now clearly come to terms with what is happening and have dramatically changed their behaviour. this is something that we have not seen from the russians since the fall of communism: active military deployment in hot proxy wars.

the first signs that russia was beginning to reverse it's policy of pacifism came with the invasion of libya. the russians voted for the security council resolution that authorized bombing in libya, but only to protect protesters. nato took control of this mission and used it to oust ghadaffi, which is not what the russians voted for. in fact, the russians lost an important port and a lot of contracts in the process, which have been gained by nato (and particularly the french and italians). discussions in american-russian relations were focused largely around the concept of "mutual trust" throughout the cold war. i'm not sure it ever meant much to the american side. but, it meant a lot to gorbachev and it seemed to be an important principle to both putin and "smiley dmitri" medvedev, up until this point. the libya operation is the point where that mutual trust again disappeared on the russian side, thrusting us back into a cold war situation. i know this because lavrov (the longstanding russian foreign minister) has stated as much publicly. that was in 2011.

but, the ukrainian offensive was an escalation that the russians could not turn a cheek on and the clear strategy towards active regime change is something that has jolted the russians out of hibernation. it set in motion contingency plans that cannot be easily reversed. well, hey - if china were to invade mexico, you don't think the americans have a full blown military plan to react, one that was written fifty years ago and is taught in academies and is periodically updated? events trigger reactions. it's the naivete of the obama administration that is the root cause here, not the russian contingencies. but, you can't just stop these things once they get going. and, thus this is when the war starts.

as you no doubt know, they quickly seized crimea and have been fighting a war on the border of ukraine for almost two years, now. but you might not realize some of the other things they've been doing.

there was recently an iran deal. again: the american press is warping the hell out of this, and you probably don't have the slightest idea what it's about. what happened is that the russians looked at the situation and said "well, you're under sanctions. we're under sanctions. let's trade. hey, do you want some advanced anti-aircraft systems to protect you from an american invasion?".

well, of course they do.

china gets wind of the deal and says "well, what's the use of these sanctions against iran, then?". and the whole world agrees.

this forced the americans to back off. the "deal" they got is a ridiculous face-saving mechanism to obscure the fact that they have just conceded that iran is outside of their sphere. what's actually happening is that the russians are moving weapons systems in that are advanced enough that the americans need to take the option of invasion off the table and finally, after 35 years, kiss that iranian oil goodbye.

but, putin is not done, apparently.

last week, he started moving more air defenses into syria - along with offensive weapons systems. and, even more recently, he's signed agreements with iraq to move weapons into that country as well.

but, wait. isn't this exactly where the americans are fighting isis?

exactly.

the russians understand that isis is a front for saudi interests to take over the region in the presumed vacuum created by the removal of russian influence. they are responding by reminding the saudis that there is, in fact, still russian influence and no vacuum after all.

the result is a very hot war right now between the united states and russia in syria and iraq, through the proxy of saudi-backed terrorists facing off directly against russian forces. this has a serious potential of getting out of hand, as more players enter in confusing ways. the turks are a particular issue.

after an initial round of fighting, the result of this may actually be stability, as the russians reassert the previous status quo balance of power and drive isis back into the desert. but, even if this does not happen, one must remember that the americans have made it clear that they are an existential threat to the russian state in the region, and this has forced them to react how they are. that is, it is not clear exactly what they're doing, but it's clear that this is part of a broader strategy that will not end upon the defeat of isis.

the reason this becomes worrying is that it is clear that the extent of the contingency plan is not understood by washington. in the last four months, the russians have managed to occupy the entire shiite crescent with russian troops that are waging a hot war against isis rebels basically over top of american efforts to create chaos to redraw the map and have clearly caught the americans off guard repeatedly. when you've got these two countries bombing similar targets in close proximity to each other, and neither is clear what the other is doing, it creates a serious potential for misunderstanding.

it's all because of a poorly thought out set of sanctions that were meant to force the russians into submission but have instead thrown them into full rebellion.