Putin's Consistent Syrian Policy Driving Washington Up the Wall

It looks like Vladimir Putin's steady and consistent policy in the Middle East is really confusing the White House and Washington's establishment media, independent journalist, blogger and analyst Danielle Ryan points out.

"It's fairly easy to tell when Washington is scrambling to keep control of a story, because two things usually happen: firstly, the media coverage becomes muddled and frazzled, and secondly, the White House quickly looks for somewhere to offload the blame. These days the scapegoat is usually Russia, and hey, why fix what ain't broken?" Ryan noted in her article for RT.

In contrast to Obama's contradictory and sometimes clumsy policy in the Middle East, Russia's approach has always been clearly articulated and consistent. Since the very beginning the Kremlin has stated that it is necessary to side with the legitimate and democratically-elected government in Syria, and warned that by toppling Bashar al-Assad the US' proxies would open Damascus' doors to Islamic State.

Furthermore, Russia believes that Bashar al-Assad should be an integral part of a broader coalition against ISIL.

Ryan cited Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who has repeatedly emphasized that it would be "absurd" to exclude the Syrian Army from fighting Islamic State since Syrian government forces still remain "the most effective military force on the ground."

"Washington still seems to believe that it can go after ISIS [ISIL] and Assad simultaneously. Little thought is given to the power vacuum such a strategy, if it was "successful," would leave behind. Underlying this policy is an assumption that if they could just get Assad out of the way and force the Russians out of the equation, there would be a nice clean transfer of power — to an American puppet government, of course — and that all would be dandy. Just like it was in Iraq and Libya," Ryan underscored.

The journalist pointed out that Western "muddled" media coverage of what is going in Syria is a logical result of Washington's "own confusion and shifting priorities."

Western media sources have no scruples about accusing Russia of "interference" in Syrian affairs and branding it as "dangerous."

"Crude and disingenuous propaganda, particularly when you consider that the difference between US military involvement in Syria and Russian military involvement is that the Russians were actually invited," Ryan stressed, commenting on the issue.

However, there is seemingly a light at the end of the tunnel, the journalist noted, referring to the US' latest decision to restore direct military talks with the Russians. She also pointed to the fact that "Assad must go" calls "have been scaled back to something to be 'negotiated' rather than immediate."

If the upcoming negotiations between Russia and US on the issue do not bear any fruit, the international community must then bring Washington's motivation into question.

"Is the White House still more concerned with installing a puppet government in Damascus or vigorously fighting Islamic State?" Ryan asked, adding that the question remains open whether Washington has long been so reluctant to partner with Russia and create a broader international coalition against ISIL.

If saving face against Moscow is a "major factor" for Washington's decision-making that means that the Syrian crisis will go on threatening to engulf Europe. European leaders, who have actively supported Obama's policies in the Middle East, should seriously ask themselves whether toppling Bashar al-Assad is worth any cost, Ryan underscored.