This snootful was actually prefaced by an announcement earlier today that was so delusional that I couldn't put a context to it until this other metaphorical shoe dropped. Calling themselves the "International Syrian Support Group," the two men pictured above took it upon themselves to pretend to declare a ceasefire on behalf of the actual two sides in the Syrian civil war that are actually fighting and have no obligation to or intention of ceasing anything:
U.S. [Commissar] of State John Kerry said on Friday that an international meeting on the Syria crisis had agreed to implement a "cessation of hostilities" in Syria and to immediately expand delivery of humanitarian aid.
Does this mean the Russians are going to stop bombing ISIS? Or provoking a war with Turkey, and therefore NATO, and therefore the United States? Since Russia is doing pretty much all of Bashir Assad's fighting for him, that would take care of one side (mostly), but who's going to ensure ISIS's compliance? And what will stop Russian hostilities from resuming once it becomes instantly clear that the jihadist state won't? Their word?
Kerry, speaking after marathon talks that included Russia and more than a dozen other countries, said that all nations involved in the talks agreed that Syrian peace negotiations should resume in Geneva as soon as possible.
But none have the actual clout to compel anybody to come to that table. So their respective agenda will still be the top priorities, will still be pursued, and since those agendas are in direct conflict with each other, the war will quickly resume and continue until one side or the other gains the upper hand, wins, and imposes a "peace settlement" on the other. Which is how geopolitics actually works, always has, and always will.
Later today, the Russians made it abundantly clear who will be the rider in that equation, and who will be the horse:
Russia warned on Thursday that a "new world war" could start in Syria as Persian Gulf countries are saying they will send ground troops into the region, the Daily Telegraph reports.
Well, yeah, but they'd be deployed there to fight ISIS, correct? So they'd be fighting on the same side as ourselves and the Russians, right? And ISIS is the common enemy that created the Syrian civil war to begin with, yes? How would that lead to a "new world war"?
Parenthetically, get a load of this latest Lurch facepalm moment:
Both Russia and the United States called for a ceasefire in the country's civil war, with Russia suggesting March 1st. The United States said that would allow two more weeks for Russia to continue bombing so-called moderate rebel forces, which the United States is backing. [emphasis added]
Which don't exist outside of the Kurds. Whom we were not aiding even before Russia intervened, even though they're the only serious "local forces" in the "region," whom we supposedly want to do our ground fighting for us. But after "marathon negotiating sessions" designed to get the Russians to stop attacking our erstwhile allies, what we agreed to is to let the Russians carpet-bomb them for an extra fortnight. I bet the Kurds sure are grateful that we've got their backs (to the hilt), huh?
Saudi Arabia, leading a group of other Arab states, offered its own plan to have Arab troops on the ground.
Because Barack Obama forfeited all of our influence, creating the free-for-all that Dmitry Medvedev describes below. Which includes Saudi Arabia's ongoing confrontation with Iran, don't forget.
That worried Russia, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev telling Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper, "The Americans and our Arab partners must think well: Do they want a permanent war?" [emphasis added]
Us? What have we done other than give you an extra two weeks to blow up more Kurds? Or ISIS, which I thought was supposed to be a good thing? It's like Sergey Lavrov hasn't listened to a single thing John Kerry has said in these "marathon" negotiations. Which puts him in the company of seven billion or so other people, of course.
I categorize the above as a veiled threat. The next quote confirms it, IMHO:
Such as war would be impossible to win quickly, Medvedev said, "especially in the Arab world, where everybody is fighting against everybody."
He just described how the Russians can win it quickly. And will.
All sides should be compelled to join negotiations instead, he said. [emphasis added]
By force, Sergey Viktorovich? That's what "compelled" means, after all. The next question is, "compelled by whom"? I think he's already answered that question,
Yeah, the Boston Balker is negotiating "peace" in Syria, alright - according to the communist definition of it.