Geopolitical update: Russia doesn’t want NATO interference in Syria

Evidence suggests Paul Craig Roberts may be spot on in his analysis of the situation in the Middle East, specifically between relations of Libya, Syria, Russia, China and NATO. The article sounded a bit far fetched, but we have tracked developments and linked back to Roberts’ assertions to see if there are some truths to it.

Today, the Russian foreign ministry just said it will veto any UN resolution on Syria.  See the red lines to see what Roberts had predicted regarding Russia, Syria and NATO in mid-April.  But read the whole article over at LRC if you really want to understand what’s happening here.

Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is – they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that’s the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it’s not in American hands.

Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don’t know who they’re dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries – Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under “revolutionaries” depends if the CIA wins – we don’t know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the “world community,” succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi, the next target will be Syria. Syria has already been demonized.

Why are they targeting Syria? – Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It’s a greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don’t know the answer.

Possibly the countries are thinking to let the Americans get further over-extended, or they may not have wanted to confront the US with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don’t know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy, and they continue to criticize it.

If Roberts is correct on the final point, that Russia and China are letting NATO overextend themselves before they act – there may be carnage up ahead folks.  All Russia and China would need to do to take down the ‘mighty’ NATO and US would be to drop their currencies and government bonds in the open market.  It would result in economic destruction – which is long overdue – for NATO countries that would cripple them and see to a rapid unravelling of the NATO (read: US) military empire.