Desperate mouthpieces of the empire have gone into a propaganda overdrive, blowing as many smokescreens around the war in Syria as they possibly can. The more enthusiastic of them would like to turn reality completely on its head and portray Russia and Putin as villains of world peace. And then there are those who, in the name of objectivity, would like to reduce a clearly moral war between good and evil to a power tussle fought for geo-strategic dominance.

So is it really as simple and boring as a duel between the ‘sole superpower’ and a ‘wannabe’ world power? Is Russia just an ‘envious has-been’ empire nostalgic about its lost glory or is it fighting for principles that guarantee world peace and order? Are there no good and bad sides in this war? Is it childish to pick sides and believe in heroes in this day and age? Well, sometimes it is not.

All evidence suggests that Putin is not an ambitious villain but a knight in shining armour, here at last to rescue our world from the claws of US unilateralism. He is clearly poised to heal the Middle East, and the world. What is happening in Syria today will define the emerging world order. It might not be the utopia that we had waited for, but it promises to be better than the unchallenged US-led reign of terror.

Russia’s Putin has put his foot down against the morbid regime-change games of the empire and the extreme violence of its unilateralist badmashi. And though he has solid partners in his resistance against imperial fascism, he is surely leading the charge. Wherever we go from here, and whether biased western media accepts it or not, he has already turned the world in a positive direction.

Huge imperial biases of the leading lights of western media and think-tank establishment are bursting at the seams. The disinformation and distractions with which it bombards the public is becoming incoherent as desperation amplifies the contradictions in the imperial narrative. Unfortunately, the bulk of our media is still content with parroting western news sources, complete with misquotes and planted stories and opinion based on such manufactured information and distorted perspectives.

It is a bit surreal that those objecting to Russian support for the Syrian government in accordance with the UN rules, find no fault with the support extended by the US-led imperial gang, in violation of international law, to anti-state militancy in Syria? Somehow, it’s okay to employ terrorists as a tool to change regimes, even when these terrorists behead children and innocent civilians and destroy world heritage along the way. And that’s not all.

When finally, Russian forces accepted the request by the Syrian government for military assistance and joined its fight against ISIS and other militant proxies, those cheer-leading the disastrous illegal operations of the US-led so-called anti-ISIS coalition labeled it as Russian ambition. The unleashing of terrorists on Syrian people to change the Assad regime and bombing Syrian towns was all about saving the same Syrian people from his brutal dictatorship and had nothing to do with imperial ambition, of course.

And when the Russian jets started decimating the nerve-centers and nurseries of terrorism facilitated by the imperial cabal, the western mainstream media, and even some alternative outlets, went hysterical as if the Russian jets had brought down the Eiffel Tour, the Big Ben and the Statue of Liberty in one day. Stories of collateral damage started surfacing before the first target was hit.

There was concern about confusion in the war theatre due to Russian intervention and how it would interfere in the work of US-led coalition, as if it was leading to any good. In actual fact, the coalition’s work boils down to lording over a fluid situation that facilitates the proliferation of terrorism and lawlessness in the region. The US-led gang has spread chaos and violence through direct interventions in Iraq and Libya, and for more than four years, Syria is the prime target of its subversion through militant proxies.

The contradictions are becoming too glaring to gloss over. Why all the fuss about the targeting of non-ISIS militants by Russia? After all the lecturing about not designating terrorists as good or bad that we got, how does one make sense of this distinction? We are expected to believe that there are these ‘moderate rebels’ who are, as the name implies, not so barbaric. They are supposed to be good because they aim to oust Assad.

In fact, almost all the ‘moderate rebels’, raised, funded, armed and trained by the imperial cabal, defected to other groups, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, many believe by design. Besides, these good terrorists have been found to be as bad as the bad ones. It is documented that even the very bad ones are considered good by the empire if they suit its objectives. It might not be allowed for anyone else to categorise terrorists as good and bad, but the US and its imperial gang obviously have a special license to use such categories as and when it wishes.

Somehow, it is okay for the lawless NATO gang to bomb the sovereign territory of Syria with no authorisation by the UN or the Syrian government and despite scoring no victory against the terrorists to write home about, but it is not okay for the Russian planes to successfully destroy the command and infrastructure of terrorists in coordination with the Syrian armed forces and on invitation by the Syrian government. Is it not because the terrorists are imperial assets and proxies launched to oust Assad and that is obviously more important for the empire than anything else? Is it not because the primary goal of the US-led coalition gathered in the name of fighting ISIS boils down to regime change?

The good news is: No amount of obfuscation by imperial smokescreens can change the reality that is taking shape on the ground in Syria. Its positive repercussion will soon be felt by the Syrian people and in the entire region battered by imperial arrogance and greed.