The failure of the Western-backed jihadi factions in Aleppo city has pushed the West to remember the idea of ‘diplomatic solution’ of the Syrian crisis.
On July 27, the Spokesperson for the United States Department John Kirby said that the US authorities expect that the conflict in Syria will be resolved through diplomatic channels
“We are working on a diplomatic solution,” he said at a briefing.
Kirby stressed that the US are “holding good discussions with Russia” on this topic.
“Progress along this path towards sustainable truce is the basis for holding the negotiations,” he said.
The intersting fact is that Kirby’s statement came after the fail of the militants’ attempt to counter-attack in Aleppo city.
Today, on July 27, when the Syrian army and the Kurdish YPG countered all jihadi attempts to re-open the strategic Castello Highway and liberated more areas of Aleppo, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and his British counterpart Boris Johnson called for the Syrian government forces to end their “disastrous” siege on the city of Aleppo.
“The ministers solemnly called upon the Syrian regime’s allies to bring an immediate end to these operations which violate the truce agreed in Munich, and international law,” they said in a joint statement.
The question appears why does the West call for “diplomatic solution” every time when jihadi factions face a loss in Syria?
It’s easy to notice that statements about a ‘diplomatic’ solution of any conflict appeare as soon as a side, opposing the US ruling elite and its allies, starts to get the upper hand.
It could be observed in the Ukrainian conflict, where the US maintains a formal pro-Western ‘progressive’ regime. Now, it’s clearly seen in Syria, where the US and its allies actually support the terrorists in order to set control over the Middle East (oil production and logistics).
Is this sarcams or Washington really believes that nobody can find a trend in its actions?