US did not aid in Syria’s battle for Aleppo: Analyst

The Syrian army has recently reestablished control over half of areas that had been under the control of militants in the eastern part of the strategic city of Aleppo. Russia has been offering military support to the Syrian government which holds and defends the city’s western side. Press TV has spoken to Scott Rickard, former American intelligence linguist, as well as Michael Lane, founder of American Institute for Foreign Policy, to discuss the Syrian army’s latest gains in the militant-held areas of Aleppo.

Rickard believes that the Syrian army, backed by Russia, has been in charge of all anti-terror operations in Aleppo, and that Americans have made no contributions.  

The United States, he said, has no way of saving the lives of the militants who are trapped in Aleppo due to the Syrian army’s advances.  

Rickard said the mercenaries in Syria were hired by the United States and its allies, referring to Aleppo as one of the strongholds which was supported the most by the CIA.

According to the analyst, there is a huge difference between the battle of Aleppo and the one for the liberation of the Iraqi city of Mosul wherein there have been no global suppliers of weapons, intelligence or logistics to the terrorists.    

He said that militant groups in Aleppo have been supported by the United States, Britain, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordan for a long time. “This is a tremendous amount of support over five years. So you have embedded forces with tremendous amount of infrastructure that has been put in place for five years … and so that is why it has been so difficult for the Russians and the Syrians to go in there and displace these individuals.”  

Referring to the Turkish military’s presence in Syria, the analyst stated that Turkey is not necessarily interested in the Syrian territory, rather, in keeping the Kurdish population away from power.

However, he said, as the cities are being freed by the Syrian army, the Turkish forces, who are now backing the militants in the northern part of Aleppo, should also retreat.

Rickard further noted that US Secretary of State John Kerry’s offer to separate the so-called moderate militant groups from terrorists in Syria will be an opportunity for Washington to act honorably and try to save the lives of the individuals it has put in harm’s way with its illegal and criminal activities there.

He also asserted that US President-elect Donald Trump is surrounding himself with some of the most pro-Israel, hawkish individuals in Washington DC, which means there is not going to be much of a change from previous administrations when it comes to warfare.  

“This is going to be an administration that is incredibly pro-Israel. It is going to be incredibly aggressive and the fact that he [Trump] has talked moderately about working alongside of Russia is a good thing maybe for Ukraine. But when it comes to the Middle East and neighbors of Israel, they better be aware,” he stated.

Meanwhile, the other panelist on Press TV’s program, Michael Lane noted the West has “loosely” aligned itself with the militants in Syria for the last several years, adding that US President Barack Obama’s stated objective was for President Assad to step down.

“So clearly, what you are seeing in the Western press now is a situation where the West has essentially lost its objective. The rebels are losing on the battlefield. Although it seems like it is by design from the West, nobody is really helping them out anymore. But the rebels are losing on the battlefield. President Assad’s hand has been strengthened immensely as a result of his military partnership with Russia. And the two of them together, assisted by also Iran and Hezbollah, have been able to press the battle towards victory,” he said.  

Lane further stated there is absolutely nothing in it for Syria or Russia to give up what is an “apparent upcoming military victory” in favor of a negotiated settlement with the United States which John Kerry has offered in a “desperate attempt” and as a “last chance.”  

According to the analyst, Donald Trump wants the United States to have fewer footprints around the world, but should he decide to engage in a particular area, it is going to be a little bit more “forceful” and “aggressive” than President Obama.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk