Global Research

Curious is the United Nation and NATO’s sudden interest in peace. Both organizations are suing for truces on two separate battlefields, one in Ukraine in Eastern Europe, and another in Syria’s northern city of Aleppo amid a regional conflagration in the Middle East. It is curious because talks of “truces” were completely absent just as recently as 2011, when both organizations, the UN and NATO, backed hordes of terrorists sweeping across Libya, committing abhorrent atrocities including the systematic, genocidal extermination of Libya’s black communities.

Image: No “ceasefire” or “truce” was proposed by the UN or NATO, because the terrorists they were backing were winning. Such calls are meant not to alleviate human suffering, but to preserve, buy time for, and rebuild forces committed to expanding such suffering. 

There was also the encirclement, intentional starvation, and denial of humanitarian aid, along with the bombardment of Libyan cities like Sirte, which also saw no protests or calls for “ceasefires” by the UN or NATO. In fact, as terrorists enforced blockades on the ground to starve residents to death, NATO bombed the encircled cities relentlessly from the air for weeks. The eventual fall of Sirte, for example, would leave behind an utterly devastate city and a decimated, scattered population. Other cities, like Tawarga, had their entire populations, down to the last resident, either killed or forced to flee.

To explain the transparently hypocritical change in policy, the UN and NATO are now witnessing a change in fortunes for forces backed by the very special interests that have hijacked and upturned the mission statements of both organizations.

Forces that were afforded absolute impunity from the UN and were backed, armed, and provided air cover by NATO in Libya, are now encircled and facing destruction in Syria. Likewise, a similar proxy conflict in Ukraine has seen thousands of NATO-backed militants encircled. A desperate attempt to broker a ceasefire through the so-called “Minsk accord” fell apart before the ink dried, with NATO-backed militias openly declaring they had no intention of giving up the fight.

The Only Terms That Could Be Acceptable 

For Syria in particular, Aleppo only still serves as a battlefield for the sole reason that NATO is to this day still funding, arming, and transferring terrorists to the battlefield through NATO-member Turkey. Any “ceasefire” or “truce” brokered in the northern city of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and a national commercial hub, should be accompanied by international peace keepers stationed in Turkey to ensure the regime in Ankara is no longer harboring, arming, and supplying terrorists within its territory.

With the streaming of terrorists across Turkey’s border with Syria abated, the existential threat to Aleppo and the rest of northern Syria would likewise cease to exist, making calls for Syrian troops to stand down a much more reasonable proposition. To ask them now, while hordes of invaders flow into their country for the sole purpose of dividing and destroying it, is an unimaginable absurdity.

Should invading militants be blocked from crossing into Syria permanently, an amnesty could be arranged for Syrian militants.

The total and complete restoration of peace and stability in Syria, with its territory fully intact, can be the only terms accepted in any deal with the UN. Anything less is ploy by the UN and NATO to buy time for an increasingly defeated army of proxy militants and a last ditch effort to arrange a “settlement” that will leave swaths of Syrian territory in the hands of NATO’s proxy forces where they can rebuild and relaunch their destructive campaign in the near future.