Bloomberg cites "US officials" who claim they are meeting with Russia to seek an "orderly transition."
Image: Brookings Institution's Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
Just how close the US is, or believes it is to actually overthrowing the Syrian government is a matter of varied opinion. What is not opinion is the fact that the US has openly conspired to "bleed" Syria to death to either perpetually limit its geopolitical influence throughout the Middle East, or to eventually precipitate the fall of the government. This was stated very clearly in Brookings Institution's "Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf):"
"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
On pages 8 and 9, the memo states:
"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention." -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
For those following the "humanitarian" rhetoric proposed by the West as their alleged motivation for involvement in Syria, it is clearly unconscionable to purposefully perpetuate violence, particularly the brutal sectarian violence now admittedly unfolding, simply to keep "a regional adversary weak." And it is from this position of moral depravity that the West is negotiating with Russia for a "transition" in Syria.
The West believes that by continuing this bloodshed and by manipulating public perception that it is "the doing of the Syrian government," "enabled" by the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians, they can "shame" opponents of their campaign of destabilization into backing this ongoing crime against world peace. However, Western propaganda is faltering in the face of the alternative media. Additionally the public in general, weary of unending war, are increasingly voicing suspicion over the motives and involvement of the West in regards to Syria. The intended sting of what appears to be a Western orchestrated atrocity in Houla Syria, exists only in the op-eds of the Western press, and extends no further - not even in the comment sections below. In other words, no one has bought it.
Image: Never again? Appeasing tyranny never works. In 1939 Hitler singed a non-aggression pact with Russia it never intended to honor. Up until the day Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, he denied his intentions of driving all the way to Moscow, claiming he was lining up troops on Russia's borders to "protect them from British bombing." Today, we see NATO playing the same game with the European ballistic missile shield intended for "Iran," while undermining and invading one Russian ally after another. Apathy and tacit complicity for wars of aggression may seem "easy," that is until one considers the price Germans ultimately paid when their fortunes finally turned.
What Russia decides to do with Syria will determine the shape of the battlefield upon which they will fight when inevitably forced to confront the encroaching machinations of Wall Street and London.
One misconception that cannot be made, however, is that by appeasing the West by giving up on Syria, like was done with Libya, will somehow placate the hegemonic ambitions driving this agenda in the first place. Like Hitler denying he intended to invade Russia up to the day he indeed invaded, Wall Street and London intend to go all the way to Moscow and Beijing, despite the myriad of excuses and denials they make along the way, and denials and excuses they will continue to make until the very day Western forces and their proxies begin unraveling both Russia and China.
China, likewise faces encirclement and containment as the Pentagon openly declares it is shifting its attention and its fleets into the Pacific. While Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta attempts to "dispel" concerns that the US is arraying its forces to confront China, his less than credible word contradicts nearly 20 years of US policy papers that describe containing and collapsing China by this very method of reasserting US hegemony in the Pacific.
Confrontation will come sooner or later, and for those wondering why the world was so apathetic in the face of the Nazis, an obvious threat to world peace in retrospect, we are given a front row seat today as Wall Street, London, and those in their orbit incrementally violate the sovereignty and destiny of nation after nation, aided by their own population's seemingly infinite apathy and ignorance. And like Germany, it will be these populations that pay the ultimate price for complacency and inaction in the face of their own governments' reckless hegemonic ambitions.